973.7L63   Minor,  Charles  Landon  Carter 
B2M66r 

The  Real  Lincoln. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 
LIBRARY 


MEMORIAL 

the  Class  of  1901 

founded  by 

HARLAN  HOYT  HORNER 

and 
HENRIETTA  CALHOUN  HORNER 


THE  REAL  LINCOLN, 

BY 

CHARLES  L.  C  MINOR,     ' 


WITH    ARTICLE 
BY  v 

LYON  G.  TYLER. 


EDITED   BY 

KATE  MASON  ROWLAND, 

Author   of  '*  Life  of  George  Mason,"  "  Life  of  Charles  Carroll  of  CarroIIton,"   etc 


RICHMOND,  VA.: 

EVERETT    WADDEY    COMPANY. 
1901. 


THE  REAL  LINCOL1 

BY 

CHARLES  L.  C  MINOR, 


\  V 


WITH  ARTICLE 
BY 

LYON  G.  TYLER, 


EDITED  BY 


KATE  MASON  ROWLAND, 

Author   of  "Life  of  George  Mason/'  "Life  of  Charles  Carroll  of  Carrollton,"  etc. 


RICHMOND,  VA.: 

EVERETT   WADDEY    COMPANY. 
1901. 


COPYRIGHTED,    1901, 
BY   CHARLES   L.    C.    MINOR. 


>\ 


BY   THE   EDITOR. 

"  Whosoever  in  writing  a  modern  history,  shall  follow 
truth  too  near  the  heels,  it  may  haply  strike  out  his  teeth. 
There  is  no  mistress  or  guide  that  hath  led  her  followers  and 
servants  into  greater  miseries.  He  that  goes  after  her  too 
far,  loseth  her  sight,  and  loseth  himself;  and  he  that  walks 
after  her  at  a  middle  distance,  I  know  not  whether  I  should 
call  that  kind  of  course  temper  or  baseness." 

"  No  man  can  long  continue  masked  in  a  counterfeit 
behavior:  the  things  that  are  forced  for  pretences,  having  no 
ground  of  truth,  cannot  long  dissemble  their  own  natures." — 
Sir  Walter  Raleigh. 

The  Genius  of  History  will  surely  vindicate  her  right  to 
truth,  though  a  whole  people  conspire  against  her.  So  the 
man  behind  the  mask,  whether  it  be  placed  there  by  himself 
or  others,  must  at  length  come  forth  in  his  own  true  character. 
"  We  have  seen,"  as  has  been  well  said,  "  the  '  Lincoln  legend  ' 
in  actual  process  of  evolution,  and  cannot  again  be  surprised 
at  the  historical  myths  that  have  come  down  to  us  from  more 
uncritical  ages."  But  legend  and  myth  must  give  way  before 
conscientious  investigation,  an  investigation  which  brings  out 
suppressed  facts  and  points  an  unerring  finger  at  fallacies  and 
fabrications. 

While  the  private  character  of  Lincoln  has  been  made  by 
his  eulogists  to  appear  the  thing  it  was  not,  his  public  career 
has  been  described  by  them  as  meriting  unqualified  approbation. 
It  is  of  the  latter  alone  I  would  speak  here.  What  was  he 
then? — the  "  liberator"  who  set  free  slaves  that  did  not  belong 
to  him  in  order  to  injure  a  people  over  whom  he  had  no  sort  of 


The  Real  Lincoln. 


jurisdiction;  the  "  saviour  of  the  Union"  who  called  armies 
into  action  to  force  a  confederacy  of  States  back  into  a  federa- 
tion they  had  abjured?  He  was  in  truth  the  Constitution- 
breaker,  the  violator  of  solemn  political  obligations,  and  the 
prime  agent  in  a  gigantic  act  of  robbery  and  confiscation.  To 
justify  themselves,  the  Northern  people  glorify  Lincoln,  set  a 
nimbus  about  his  head,  crown  him  with  bays  as  their  pro- 
tagonist in  the  drama  by  which  the  great  crime  of  the  century 
was  consummated — the  suppression  of  Southern  independence. 
With  unconscious  irony  Lincoln  is  compared  by  these  illogical 
idolaters  with  Washington.  To  liken  the  oppressor  of  whole 
communities  to  the  arch  "rebel"  who  achieved  the  independ- 
ence of  these  communities  is  surely  the  veriest  climax  of  incon- 
sequentness.  Washington  led  thirteen  colonies  to  independ- 
ence; Lincoln  deprived  thirteen  States  of  the  rights  secured 
to  them  by  the  arms  of  Washington.  The  one  fought  for 
the  principle  that  governments  derive  their  just  powers  from 
the  consent  of  the  governed;  the  other  upheld  the  doctrine 
that  governments  should  rest  on  force  and  not  on  consent. 
Lincoln's  true  peer  and  prototype  is  found  in  George  III.  In  the 
eighteenth  century  it  was  Washington  who  represented  the 
rights  of  communities  in  a  so-called  "indissoluble"  empire; 
in  the  nineteenth  century  it  was  Lincoln  who  opposed  this 
principle  and  maintained  the  supremacy  of  a  so-called  "  indis- 
soluble "  federal  republic.  Jefferson  Davis  exemplified  the 
creed  of  Thomas  Jefferson  in  opposition  to  the  George  III. 
and  Lincoln  dogma — the  creed  that  a  community  (and  if  a 
colony,  much  more  certainly  a  State),  has  a  reserved  sovereign 
power  in  its  "  people,"  giving  them  a  right  to  ordain  and  alter 
their  own  form  of  government,  whether  these  communities 
are  in  an  empire  under  a  king  or  in  a  "union"  of  States  under 
a  president. 

"  When,  in  1861,"  says  a  distinguished  Virginia  writer, 
"  moved  by  her  sovereign  pleasure,  but  acting  in  accordance 
with  her  old  principles  and  traditions,  she  [Virginia]  threw 
off  a  grievous  Federal  yoke,  she  found  an  American  President, 
whose  power  was  but  the  rank  and  unhealthy  growth  of  those 
principles,  as  prompt  to  stifle  them  with  force  as  King  George 
had  been,  who  denied  the  school  of  politics  out  of  which  they 


Preface.  5 

sprang,  nor  in  petition,  nor  remonstrance,  had  ever  heard  of 
these  extravagant  pretensions  of  his  American  subjects.  Mr. 
Lincoln,  by  his  armed  powers,  produced  far  greater  results 
than  the  loss  of  independence  by  the  Southern  States,  for  he 
destroyed  the  head-spring  from  which  had  been  derived  the 
right,  which  the  majority  claimed  to  govern  the  State.  It  is 
evident  the  only  authority  for  that  theorem  of  politics  was 
the  assertions  of  those  charters  of  popular  rights  which  the 
late  General  Grant  overthrew  with  his  myrmidons.  If  at  this 
day,  the  majority  governs  anywhere,  within  the  extended 
limits  of  political  society,  it  is  by  the  reverence  which  men 
pay  to  positive  law.  The  moral  ground  has  been  broken  up 
and  swept  away.  The  party  of  'moral  ideas,'  as  the  Republican 
party  arrogantly  and  insolently  call  themselves,  has  remitted 
society,  in  every  land,  to  the  government  of  force,  and  we 
stand  now  in  this  advanced  era  where  Caesar  and  Genseric 
stood.  From  that  time  [the  date  of  the  war  upon  the  Con- 
federate States]  the  Republic  of  the  United  States,  regarded 
as  a  model  for  imitation,  ceased,  by  its  qwn  act,  to  be  a 
government  of  consent,  as  in  two  famous  charters  and  in  the 
Constitution  which  created  it,  it  had  been  with  exultation 
proclaimed  to  be,  and  under  the  control  of  Abraham  Lincoln 
and  the  Republican  party,  became  a  government  of  force, 
according  to  the  American  classification,  as  much  as  the 
sternest  military  monarchy  in  king-governed  Asia."* 

Facilis  deoensus  Averni.  Secretary  Root  justifies  the  latest 
American  war  of  subjugation  by  the  precedent  of  1861. 
"  Nothing  can  be  more  mischievous,"  he  tells  us,  "  than  a  prin- 
ciple misapplied.  The  doctrine  that  government  derives  its 
just  powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed  was  applicable 
to  the  conditions  for  which  Jefferson  wrote  it  and  to  the  people 
to  whom  he  applied  it.  *  *  *  Lincoln  did  not  apply  it  to 
the  South,  and  the  great  struggle  of  the  Civil  War  was  a 
solemn  assertion  by  the  American  people  that  there  are  other 
principles  of  law  and  liberty  [?]  which  limit  the  application 
of  the  doctrine  of  consent.  Government  does  not  depend  upon 

*  "  The  Republic  as  a  Form  of  Government ;  or,  The  Evolution  of  Democ- 
racy in  America,"  pp.  11, 12,  7, 8,  by  John  Scott  (of  Fauquier),  London,  Chap- 
man and  Hall,  1890. 


The  Real  Lincoln. 


consent."  *  The  Northern  Democrat  to-day  differs  only  from 
the  Republican  in  being  more  shamelessly  inconsistent.  It  will 
be  seen  that  this  party  opposed  in  1861  the  coercion  of  the 
Southern  Confederacy,  and  was  dragged  into  the  war  by  Lin- 
coln. But  who  among  them  now  raises  his  voice  to  confess 
the  wrong  of  which  the  United  States  were  then  guilty?  In 
the  late  presidential  campaign,  William  Jennings  Bryan,  who, 
if  elected,  would  have  owed  his  elevation  to  the  vote  of  the 
"  Solid  South,"  equally  with  Mr.  Root,  declared  the  "  doctrine 
of  consent"  totally  inapplicable  to  the  sovereign  States  of  the 
late  Confederacy.  "  Republicans  tell  us,"  he  says,  "  that  the 
Philippine  war  is  the  same  as  was  the  War  between  the  States. 
A  man  does  not  need  to  have  much  intelligence  to  see  the 
difference  between  the  principles  involved.  In  the  Civil  War 
the  North  was  holding  the  people  of  the  South  in  the  Union, 
but  the  people  were  not  to  be  subjects;  they  were  to  be 
citizens.  They  were  not  held  in  the  Union  to  be  denied  the 
privileges  of  citizenship."  Neither  did  George  III.  intend  to 
deprive  the  people  of  the  American  colonies  of  the  privileges 
of  British  citizens.  But  here  is  Mr.  Bryan's  conclusion,  in 
pleading  for  the  Filipinos:  "There  are  but  two  theories  of 
government.  One  is  that  governments  come  up  from  the 
people.  The  other-is  that  governments  rest  upon  force.  If  this 
nation  rejects  the  idea  that  governments  derive  their  just 
powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed,  then  civilization 
starts  backward  toward  the  Dark  Ages."  f 

Is  it  not,  then,  within  the  bounds  of  truth  to  say  that  the 
man  who  first  "  rejected  "  this  idea,  the  man  who  first  spurned 
and  trampled  under  foot  the  principles  of  '76,  leading  to  the 
conditions  of  1865  and  1901,  was  even  more  the  enemy  of 
America  and  of  liberty  than  George  III.  and  Lord  North? 


*Speech  of  Elihu  Root,  Secretary  of  War,  Canton,  Ohio,  October  24,1900. 
Mr.  March,  of  Illinois,  in  a  debate  in  the  House  of  Representatives.  January  26, 
1899,  said  "  he  was  in  favor  of  annexation  of  the  Philippines  whether  the 
natives  were  willing  or  not.  For  four  years  we  had  fought  in  this  country 
to  force  the  Southern  people  to  submit  to  the  Constitution  against  their 
will.  It  was  absurd  to  say  that  we  could  not  employ  force  to  take  and  hold 
the  Philippines."  So  Puck,  in  a  cartoon  of  the  25th  of  January,  inscribes  on 
the  wall  of  "  Uncle  Sam's  "  schoolhouse:  "  The  Confederate  States  refused 
their  consent  to  be  governed;  but  the  Union  was  preserved  without  their 
consent." 

f  Speech  of  Hon.  Wm.  J.  Bryan,  Shepherdstown,  W.  Va.,  September  5, 1900. 


THE  REAL  LINCOLN. 


INTRODUCTION* 

A  mistaken  estimate  of  Abraham  Lincoln  has  been  spread 
abroad  very  widely,  and  even  in  the  South  an  editorial  in  a 
very  respectable  religious  paper  lately  said  as  follows:  "  Our 
country  has  more  than  once  been  singularly  fortunate  in  the 
moral  character  and  the  admirable  personality  of  its  popular 
heroes.  Washington,  Lincoln  and  Lee  have  been  the  type 
of  character  that  it  was  safe  to  hold  up  to  the  admiration 
of  their  own  age  and  the  imitation  of  succeeding  generations." 
In  the  North  the  paean  of  praise  that  began  with  his  death  has 
grown  to  such  extravagance  that  he  has  been  called  by  one 
eminent  popular  speaker  "a  servant  and  follower  of  Jesus 
Christ,"  and  by  another  "first  of  all  that  have  walked  the 
earth  after  the  Nazarene,"  and  on  his  late  birthday  a  eulogist 
asked  us  to  give  up  aspirations  for  a  heaven  where  Lincoln's 
presence  is  not  assured. 

To  try  to  reawaken  or  to  foster  ill  will  between  the  North 
and  the  South  would  be  a  useless,  mischievous  and  most  cen- 
surable task,  and  it  will  be  seen  that  this  sketch  has  an 
exactly  opposite  purpose,  but  it  is  a  duty  to  correct  such 
misrepresentations,  for  the  reason  that  they  make  claims  for 
Lincoln  entirely  inconsistent  with  the  concessions  of  grave 
defects  in  him  that  are  made  by  the  closest  associates  of  his 
private  life,  and  by  his  most  respectable  and  most  eulogistic 
biographers,  and  equally  inconsistent  with  the  estimates  of 
him  expressed  by  the  greatest  and  closest  associates  of  his 

*A  part  of  the  historical  material  used  in  this  sketch  has  been  used  before 
in  letters  over  the  author's  name  in  daily  papers,  as  follows:  In  the  Rich- 
mond (Va.)  Times,  of  December  31st,  1898 :  of  September  3d,  1899,  and  of  May 
llth,  1900;  in  the  Baltimore  Sun,  of  April  3d,  1899,  of  August  25th,  1900,  of 
October  12th,  1900,  and  of  March  4th,  1901;  in  the  Richmond  (Va.)  Dispatch, 
January  14th,  1900,  and  of  March  13th,  1900.  The  last  two  appeared  in  the 
Southern  Historical  Society  Papers,  Vol.  XXVII.,  as  Articles  XXI.  and 
XLIII.,  pp.  165,  365. 


The  Real  Lincoln. 


public  life,  and  by  a  very  large  part  of  the  great  Northern 
and  Western  Republican  leaders  of  his  own  day.  This  sketch 
is  based  on  the  testimony  of  such  witnesses  only. 

In  the  Appendix  will  be  found,  in  alphabetical  order,  the 
names  of  all  the  witnesses  whose  evidence  is  submitted  in  this 
sketch.  Reference  is  invited  to  that  Appendix,  as  each  witness 
is  reached  by  the  reader,  and  it  will  be  found  that  each  is 
included  in  one  of  the  above  indicated  classes.  Only  old 
and  exceptionally  well-informed  men  of  this  day  are  likely 
to  know  the  ample  authority  with  which  these  witnesses  speak. 
See  Horace  Greeley,  whose  lofty  integrity  extorted  admiration 
from  thousands  on  whose  nearest  and  dearest  interests  his 
Tribune  newspaper  waged  a  war  as  deadly  as  it  was  honest; 
see  Lincoln's  greatest  Cabinet  Ministers — Seward,  Chase  and 
Stan  ton;  see  two  among  the  foremost  leaders  of  thought 
and  action  of  their  day,  John  Sherman  and  Ben  Wade;  see 
representatives  of  the  highest  standards,  intellectual  and 
moral,  Richard  Dana  and  Edward  Everett;  see  the  most  ardent 
and  prominent  of  Abolitionists,  Wendell  Phillips;  and  see 
the  correspondent  of  the  London  Times,  Russell;  gee  the  most 
up-to-date  historians  of  our  own  day,  Ida  Tarbell,  A.  K. 
McClure,  Schouler,  Ropes  and  Rhodes;  and  see  the  most  inti- 
mate associates  of  Lincoln's  lifetime,  Lamon  and  Herndon, 
who  give  such  reasons  for  telling  not  the  good  only,  but  all 
they  know  about  their  great  friend,  as  win  commendation  from 
the  latest  biographers  of  all,  Morse  and  Hapgood,  whose  books 
have  received  only  praise  from  the  American  reading  public. 

Was  Lincoln  Heroic  ? 

Among  the  heroic  traits  claimed  for  Lincoln  is  personal 
courage.  This  claim  is  hard  to  reconcile  with  his  carefully- 
concealed  midnight  ride  into  Washington  a  day  or  two  before 
his  inauguration.  McClure  and  others  have  been  at  no  small 
pains  to  apologize  for  it,  but  Greeley  likened  him*  to  "  a 
hunted  fugitive,"  and  Lamon,  the  intimate  friend  of  his  life- 
time, who  was  selected  by  himself  as  the  one  heavily  armed 
companion  of  the  midnight  journey,  expressly  declares  that 

*  American  Conflict,  Vol.  I. ,  p.  421. 


Was  Lincoln  Heroic?  9 


the  apprehensions  of  violence  were  without  the  slightest 
foundation  then  or  on  the  inauguration  day,  described  below. 
Nicolay  and  Hay  devote  a  chapter  (XX.  of  Vol.  III.)  to  it,  but 
do  not  claim  that  there  was  any  danger.  Morse,  as  jealous  to 
defend  Lincoln  as  any  other,  concedes  there  was  no  danger, 
and  that  "  Lamon's  account  of  it  *  *  *  is  doubtless  the 
most  trustworthy." 

Ida  Tarbell  describes  Lincoln's  progress  through  the  city  to 
his  Inaugural  ceremony — the  strong  military  force,  including 
artillery,  assembled  to  protect  him  under  command  of  General 
Winfield  Scott — "  platoons  of  soldiers"  at  the  street  corners, 
"  groups  of  riflemen  on  the  housetops,"  and  shows  how  he 
passed  through  a  board  tunnel  into  the  Capitol  building  "  with 
fifty  or  sixty  soldiers  under  the  platform."  The  story  of  the 
journey  and  of  the  Inauguration  makes  quite  comprehensible 
what  Lamon  and  Vice-President  Hamlin  record,  that  Lincoln 
was  bitterly  ashamed  ever  afterward  of  what  he  had  done  in 
this  matter.* 

When  Baltimore  had  stopped  the  Massachusetts  soldiers 
and  Maryland  had  stopped  all  soldiers  going  to  Washington, 
so  that  the  capital  seemed  to  be  left  at  the  mercy  of  the  South, 
Ida  Tarbell,  Nicolay  and  Hay,  Schouler  and  Rhodes,  give  singu- 
lar accounts  of  Lincoln's  state  of  apprehension.  Rhodes  and 
Tarbell  quote  his  words:  "Why  don't  they  come?  Why  don't 
they  come?  I  begin  to  believe  there  is  no  North.  The  Seventh 
Regiment  is  a  myth."  *  *  *  *  f 

Russell  wrote  to  the  London  Times  (My  Diary,  North  and 
South,  page  43)  that  when  Washington  city  was  in  panic  after 

*  McClure's  Our  Presidents  and  his  Lincoln(p.46  etseq.);  Lamon's  Lincoln  (p. 
16  et  seq.,  88  et  seq.,  513  et  seq.) ;  Ida  Tarbell,  in  McClure'8  Magazine  for  January 
and  February,  1900 ;  Greeley's  American  Conflict  (Vol.  I.,  p.  421  et  seq,) ;  Morse's 
Lincoln  (p.  197  etseq.);  Hamlin's  Life  of  Hamlin  (p.  389),  and  Rhodes'  History 
of  the  United  States  (Vol.  III.,  p.  304).  The  Hon.  Henry  L.  Dawes  says,  in 
Tributes  from  his  Associates  (p.  4) :  "  He  never  altogether  lost  to  me  the  look 
with  which  he  met  the  curious  and,  for  the  moment,  not  very  kind  gaze  of 
the  House  of  Representatives  on  that  first  morning  after  what  they  deemed 
a  pusillanimous  creep  into  Washington." 

-Hda  Tarbell,  in  McClure's  Magazine  for  February,  1899  (p.  325);  Rhodes' 
History  of  the  United  States  (Vol.  III.,  p.  368) ;  Nicolay  and  Hay's  Lincoln  (Vol. 
IV.,  p.  152  et  seq.) ;  Schouler's  History  of  the  United  Stales  (Vol.  VI.,  p.  45). 


10  The  Real  Lincoln. 


the  defeat  at  Bull  Run*  Lincoln  "sat  listening  in  fear  and 
trembling  for  the  sound  of  the  enemy's  cannon." 

In  the  second  great  panic  in  Washington,  when  the  Union 
army  under  General  Pope  was  utterly  routed  and  close  on 
Washington  in  retreat,  Gorham  and  Rhodes  |  describe  Lincoln 
in  such  doubt  and  apprehension  as  to  say  to  Chase  and  Stan- 
ton,  of  his  Cabinet,  that  "he  would  gladly  resign  his  place." 
General  B.  F.  Butler  censures  the  account  of  Lincoln's  condi- 
tion given  by  Nicolay  and  Hay,  as  follows:  "A  careful  reading 
of  that  description  would  lead  one  to  infer  that  Lincoln  was 
in  a  state  of  abject  fear." 

The  Life  of  Charles  Francis  Adams  describes  (page  120  et  seq.) 
Adams'  visit  to  the  new  President  to  get  his  instructions  as 
Minister  to  England.  He  got  none  whatever,  was  "  half 
amused,  half  mortified,  altogether  shocked,"  and  got  an  im- 
pression of  "dismay"  at  Lincoln's  behavior  and  his  uncon- 
sciousness of  "  the  gravity  of  the  crisis,"  or  his  insensibility 
to  it,  and  perceived  that  Lincoln  was  only  "  intent  on  the 
distribution  of  offices."  The  biographer,  his  son,  says  that  this 
impression  had  not  faded  from  the  mind  of  Mr.  Adams  twelve 
years  later,  when  he  made  a  Memorial  Address  on  the  death 
of  Seward,  as  indeed  plainly  appears  in  that  address. 

Rhodes  records  contempt  for  Lincoln  expressed  by  his 
Secretary,  Salmon  P.  Chase,  afterwards  made  by  Lincoln  Chief 
Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court,  and  says  that  Chase  "  was  by  no 
means  alone  in  his  judgment,"  and  that  "  in  many  Senators 
and  Representatives  existed  a  distrust  of  his  ability  and  force 
of  character,"  and  he  further  quotes  so  high  an  authority  as 
Richard  H.  Dana,  who  said  in  one  letter,  when  on  a  visit  to 
Washington,  "  the  lack  of  respect  for  the  President  in  all 
parties  is  unconcealed,"  and  wrote,  in  March,  1863,  to  Charles 
Francis  Adams,  Minister  to  England,  that  Lincoln  "  has  no 
admirers  *  *  *  and  does  not  act,  talk,  or  feel  like  the 
ruler  of  a  great  empire  in  a  great  crisis,  *  *  *  he  is  an 
unspeakable  calamity  to  us  where  he  is."  J  General  Bonn  Piatt, 


*  Russell's  My  Diary 

•1-Gorham's  Life  of  Stanton  (Vol.  II.,  p.  44  et  seq  );  Rhodes'  History  of  the 
United  States  (Vol.  IV  ,  p.  137  et  seq.)  ;  Butler's  Book  (p.  219). 

t  Rhodes'  History  of  the  United  States  (Vol.  IV.,  pp.  205  to  210  et  seq.  and  a  note 
on  p.  210). 


Was  Lincoln  Heroic  f  11 


in  Reminiscences  of  Lincoln  (page  286)  denies  the  claim  made 
for  Lincoln  that  he  was  of  a  kind  or  forgiving  nature  or  of 
any  gentle  impulses,  and  shows  (page  493)  his  extraordinary 
insensibility  to  the  ills  of  his  fellow-citizens  and  soldiers  when 
the  miseries  of  the  war  were  at  their  worst,  and  sets  forth 
(page  481  to  500)  his  entire  indifference  to  the  condition  of  the 
negroes  or  their  future  fate.  Whitney,  too,  says  "  he  had  no 
intention  to  make  voters  of  the  negroes — in  fact  their  welfare 
did  not  enter  into  his  policy  at  all."* 

What  Lincoln  was  capable  of  in  his  dealings  with  women 
is  conclusively  illustrated  by  his  letter  to  Mrs.  Browning  about 
Miss  Owens.  Lamon  copies  it  and  so  do  Herndon  and  Hapgood. 
Nicolay  and  Hay  concede  its  authenticity  in  trying  to  make 
light  of  it;  Hapgood  copies  besides  another  letter  in  which 
Lincoln  asks  Miss  Owens  to  marry  him.  Morse  calls  the  letter 
to  Mistress  Browning  "  one  of  the  most  unfortunate  epistles 
ever  penned,"  and  elsewhere  calls  it  "  that  most  abominable 
epistle."  f  Acknowledging  that  he  had  lately  asked  Miss  Owens 
to  marry  him  and  had  been  refused  by  her,  Lincoln  writes  to 
Mrs.  Browning  that  one  of  his  reasons  for  asking  her  to  marry 
him  was  the  conviction  that  no  other  man  would  ever  do  so. 
Lamon  speaks  (page  181)  of  "  its  coarse  exaggeration  in  de- 
scribing a  person  whom  the  writer  was  willing  to  marry,  its 
imputation  of  toothless  and  weather-beaten  old  age  to  a  woman 
young  and  handsome." 

Evidence  of  the  marriage  of  Lincoln's  parents  has  been 
found  since  Lamon's  Lincoln  was  published  in  1872  (see  page 
10),  and  like  evidence  of  his  mother's  legitimate  birth  since 
Hapgood's  Lincoln  was  published  in  1900  (see  page  5).  But 
Lincoln  himself  was  capable  of  bringing  shame  upon  the  birth 
of  his  mother  to  escape  the  reproach  of  being  of  the  unmixed 
"  poor  white  "  blood  of  the  Hanks  family.  Herndon's  Lincoln 
(Vol.  I.,  page  3)  says:  "  It  was  about  1850,  when  he  and  I  were 
driving  in  his  one-horse  buggy  to  the  court  in  Minard  county, 
Illinois.  *  *  *  He  said  of  his  mother  *  *  *  that  she 
was  the  illegitimate  daughter  of  Lucy  Hanks  and  of  a  well- 

*  On  Circuit  with  Lincoln,  p  364. 

fSee  Lamon's  Lincoln,  p.  181  et  seq.,&nd  Herndon's  Lincoln,  Vol.  I.,  p,  55, 
and  Hapgood's  Lincoln,  p.  64  to  71,  and  Nicolay  &  Hay's  Lincoln.  Vol.  1.,  p.  192 


12  The  Real  Lincoln. 


bred  Virginia  farmer  or  planter,  and  he  argued  that  from  this 
last  source  came  his  power  of  analysis,  his  mental  activity, 
his  ambition,  and  all  the  qualities  that  distinguished  him  from 
the  other  members  of  the  Hanks  family,  *  *  *  and  he 
believed  that  his  better  nature  and  finer  qualities  came  from 
this  broad-minded,  unknown  Virginian." 

Was  Lincoln  a  Christian  ? 

As  to  Lincoln's  attitude  towards  religion,  Holland  in  his 
Lincoln,  says  (page  286),  that  twenty  out  of  the  twenty-three 
ministers  of  the  different  denominations  of  Christians,  and  a 
very  large  majority  of  the  prominent  members  of  the  churches 
in  his  home  (Springfield,  Illinois)  opposed  him  for  President. 
He  says  (page  241) :  *  *  *  "  Men  who  knew  him  through- 
out all  his  professional  and  political  life,"  have  said  "  that, 
so  far  from  being  a  religious  man,  or  a  Christian,  the  less 
said  about  that  the  better."  He  says  of  Lincoln's  first  recorded 
religious  utterance,  used  in  closing  his  farewell  address  to 
Springfield,  that  it  "  was  regarded  by  many  as  an  evidence 
both  of  his  weakness  and  of  his  hypocrisy  *  *  *  and  was 
tossed  about  as  a  joke — '  old  Abe's  Last.'  " 

Hapgood's  Lincoln  (page  291  et  seq.)  records  that  the  pious 
words  with  which  the  Emancipation  Proclamation  closes  were 
added  at  the  suggestion  of  Secretary  Chase,  and  so  do  Rhodes 
and  Usher,  and  Rhodes  shows  him  plainly  an  infidel  if  not  an 
atheist.*  Of  his  words  that  savor  of  religion,  Lamon  says,  in 
his  Lincoln  (page  503) :  "  If  he  did  not  believe  in  it,  the  masses 
of  'the  plain  people'  did,  and  no  one  was  ever  more  anxious  to 
do  what  was  of  good  report  among  men."  Lamon  further  says 
(page  197),  that  after  Mr.  Lincoln  "appreciated  *  *  *  the 
violence  and  extent  of  the  religious  prejudices  which  freedom 
of  discussion  from  his  standpoint  would  be  sure  to  rouse 
against  him,"  and  "  the  immense  and  augmenting  power  of  the 
churches,"  *  *  *  (page  502)  "  he  indulged  freely  in  indefi- 
nite expressions  about '  Divine  Providence/  'the  justice  of  God,' 

*Rhodes'  History  of  the  United  States  (Vol.  II.,  p.  312) ;  and  he  adds :  "When 
Lincoln  entered  political  life  he  became  reticent  upon  his  religious  opin- 
ions." Usher  in  Reminiscences  of  Lincoln  (p.  91). 


Was  Lincoln  a  Christian?  13 


the  'favor  of  the  Most  High/  in  his  published  documents,  but 
he  nowhere  ever  professed  the  slightest  faith  in  Jesus  as  the 
Son  of  God  and  the  Saviour  of  men."  (Page  501  et  seq.)  "  He 
never  told  any  one  that  he  accepted  Jesus  as  the  Christ,  or 
performed  one  of  the  acts  which  necessarily  followed  upon 
such  a  conviction  (page  487)."  "When  he  went  to  church  at 
all,  he  went  to  mock,  and  came  away  to  mimic."  On  page  157 
and  thereafter  Lamon  tells  minutely  of  the  writing  and  the 
burning  of  a  "  little  book,"  written  by  Lincoln  with  the  purpose 
to  disprove  the  truth  of  the  Bible  and  the  divinity  of  Christ, 
and  tells  how  it  was  burned  without  his  consent  by  his  friend 
Hill,  lest  it  should  ruin  his  political  career  before  a  Christian 
people.  He  says  that  Hill's  son  called  the  book  "  infamous," 
and  that  "  the  book  was  burnt,  but  he  never  denied  or  regretted 
its  composition;  on  the  contrary,  he  made  it  the  subject  of 
free  and  frequent  conversations  with  his  friends  at  Springfield, 
and  stated  with  much  particularity  and  precision  the  origin, 
arguments  and  object  of  the  work." 

Herndon  describes  the  "essay"  or  "  book  "  as  "  an  argument 
against  Christianity,  striving  to  prove  that  the  Bible  was  not 
inspired,  and  therefore  not  God's  revelation,  and  that  Jesus 
Christ  was  not  the  Son  of  God."  Herndon  says  that  Lincoln 
intended  to  have  the  "essay"  published,  and  further  says  that 
Lincoln  "  would  come  into  the  clerk's  office  where  I  and  some 
young  men  were  writing,  *  *  *  and  would  bring  a  Bible 
with  him;  would  read  a  chapter  and  argue  against  it."* 

A  letter  of  Herndon's,  published  in  Lamon's  Lincoln  (page 
492  et  seq.),  says  of  Lincoln's  contest  with  the  Rev.  Peter  Cart- 
wright  for  Congress  in  1848  (page  404) :  "  In  that  contest  he 
was  accused  of  being  an  infidel,  if  not  an  atheist;  he  never 
denied  the  charge;  would  not;  'would  die  first,'  because  he 
knew  it  could  be  and  would  be  proved." 

On  pages  487  to  514  Lamon's  Lincoln  records  numerous 
letters  from  Lincoln's  intimate  associates,  and  one  from  his 
wife,  that  fully  confirm  the  above  testimony  as  to  his  attitude 
of  hostility  to  religion. 

*  Herndon's  Lincoln  (Vol.  III.,  p.  39  et  seq.  and  439  et  seq.),  and  Lamon's  Lin- 
coln (p.  492). 


14  The  Real  Lincoln. 


Lincoln's  Jokes  and  Stories* 

Holland's  Lincoln  says  of  the  indecency  of  his  jokes  and 
stories:  "  It  is  useless  for  Mr.  Lincoln's  biographers  to  ignore 
this  habit;  the  whole  West,  if  not  the  whole  country  (he  is 
writing  in  1866)  is  full  of  these  stories,  and  there  is  no  doubt 
at  all  that  he  indulged  in  them  with  the  same  freedom  that  he 
did  in  those  of  a  less  objectionable  character." 

Again  he  says  (page  251) :  *  *  *  "  Men  who  knew  him 
throughout  all  his  professional  and  political  life  *  *  *  have 
'said  that  he  was  the  foulest  in  his  jests  and  stories  of  any  man 
in  the  country." 

Comprehensive  as  this  indictment  is,  it  is  fully  sustained 
by  testimony  submitted  below  from  Morse,  Hapgood,  Piatt, 
Rhodes,  Lamon  and — most  shocking  testimony  of  all — from 
Herndon. 

Norman  Hapgood,  the  latest  biographer  of  Lincoln  (of  1900) , 
and  Morse,  the  next  latest  (of  1892),  confirm  the  "revelations" 
and  the  "ghastly  exposures"  about  Lincoln  that  will  be  de- 
scribed below  as  recorded  by  Lamon  and  by  Herndon.  Morse 
says  that  a  necessity  and  duty  rested  on  those  biographers  to 
record  these  truths,  as  they'  both  claim,  and  Hapgood  says, 
"  Herndon  has  told  the  President's  early  life  with  refreshing 
honesty  and  with  more  information  than  any  one  else."*  Gen- 
eral Ponn  Piatt  records  an  occasion  when  he  heard  Lincoln 
tell  stories,  "no  one  of  which  will  bear  printing."  Lamon  adds 
to  all  this  his  testimony  that  this  habit  of  Lincoln  "was  re- 
strained by  no  presence  and  no  occasion,"  and  Piatt  refers  to 
him  as  "the  man  who  could  open  a  Cabinet  meeting  called  to 
discuss  the  Emancipation  Proclamation  by  reading  aloud  Arte- 
mus  Ward,"  and  refers  to  Gettysburg  as  "the  field  that  he 
shamed  with  a  ribald  song,"  making  reference  to  a  song  that 
Lincoln  asked  for  and  got  sung  on  the  Gettysburg  battlefield, 
the  day  he  made  his  celebrated  address  there.  This  behavior 
has  been  much  discussed  by  his  eulogists,  and  defended  as  a 
relief  necessary  for  a  nature  so  sensitive  and  high-wrought.f 

*Morse's  Lincoln  (Vol.  I.,  pp.  13  and  192  et  seq.);  Hapgood's  Lincoln  (Pre- 
face p.  8). 

fLamon's  Lincoln  (p.  430),  and  Reminiscences  of  Lincoln  (p.  486  et  seq.,  and  p. 
481  et  seq.,  and  p.  455). 


Lincoln's  Jokes  and  Stories.  15 


"Was  ever  so  sublime  a  thing  ushered  in  by  the  ridiculous?" 
says  Rhodes.  (Vol.  IV.,  page  161.) 

Herndon  gives  in  his  first  volume  (at  page  55  and  there- 
after) a  copy  of  a  satire  written  by  Lincoln,  The  First  Chronicle 
of  Reuben,  and  an  account  of  the  very  slight  provocation  under 
which  Lincoln  wrote  it,  and  in  two  foot  notes  describes  the 
exceedingly  base  and  indecent  device  by  which  Lincoln  brought 
about  the  events  which  gave  opportunity  for  this  satire;  and 
Herndon  adds  some  verses  written  and  circulated  by  Lincoln 
which  he  considers  even  more  vile  than  the  "Chronicle."  Of 
these  verses  Lamon  says,  "  It  is  impossible  to  transcribe  them," 
in  his  Lincoln  (pages  63  and  64).  Decency  does  not  permit  the 
publication  of  the  Chronicle  or  the  verses  here. 

In  neither  of  A.  K.  McClure's  books,  Lincoln  and  Men  of  the 
War  Time,  published  in  1892,  or  Our  Presidents,  Etc.,  published 
in  1900,  does  he  offer  any  contradiction  of  the  "  revelations," 
and  "  ghastly  disclosures  "  that  Lamon  and  Herndon  had  pub- 
lished to  the  world  so  long  before,  but  McClure  does  say  in  the 
earlier  of  the  books,  in  the  preface  (page  2),  "  The  closest  men 
to  Lincoln,  before  and  after  his  election  to  the  presidency,  were 
David  Davis,  Leonard  Swett,  Ward  H.  Lamon  and  William  H. 
Herndon."  Letters  of  the  two  first  named  are  among  the 
letters  referred  to  above,  published  by  Lamon  as  evidence  .of 
Lincoln's  attitude  toward  religion. 

If  any  would  take  refuge  in  the  hope  that  the  responsibili- 
ties of  his  high  office  raised  Lincoln  above  these  habits  of 
indecency  and  godlessness,  they  are  met  by  authentic  stories 
of  his  grossly  unseemly  behavior  as  President,  by  the  evidence 
of  Lamon,  the  chosen  associate  of  his  lifetime,  that  his  indul- 
gence in  gross  jokes  and  stories  was  "  restrained  by  no  presence 
and  no  occasion,"  and  by  a  letter  of  Nicolay,  his  senior  private 
secretary  throughout  his  administration,  which  states  that  he 
perceived  no  change  in  Lincoln's  attitude  toward  religion  after 
his  entrance  on  the  presidency.* 


*Lamon's  Lincoln  (p.  480  and  ppi.  487  to  504).  The  Cosmopolitan,  of  March, 
1901,  says  that  Nicolay  "probably  was  closer  to  the  martyred  President  than 
any  other  man.  *  *  *  That  he  knew  Lincoln  as  President  and  as  man 
more  intimately  than  any  other  man."  *  *  Rhodes  is  everywhere  zealous 


16  The  Real  Lincoln. 


Estimates  of  Lincoln  Entertained  by  the  Greatest  Repub- 
licans of  his  Day  and  by  the  Greatest  of  his  Associates 
in  his  Public  Career* 

The  evidence  thus  far  submitted  concerns  chiefly  the  per- 
sonal character  of  Lincoln,  and  his  private  career.  Let  us 
proceed  to  consider  evidence  to  show  that  his  character  and 
conduct  of  public  affairs  provoked  the  bitterest  censure  from 
a  very  great  number  of  his  co-workers  in  his  achievements, 
among  whom  may  be  named  Greeley,  Thaddeus  Stevens,  Sum- 
ner,  Trumbull,  Zach.  Chandler,  Fred.  Douglas,  Beecher, 
Wendell  Phillips,  Wilson,  Hamlin  and  Seward;  while  the  most 
bitter  and  contemptuous  and  persistent  of  all  Lincoln's  critics 
were  Chase,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  and  Chief  Justice,  and 
Stanton,  known  ever  since  as  his  great  War  Secretary. 

Ben  Perley  Poore,  in  Reminiscences  of  Lincoln  (page  248), 
shows  Beecher's  censures  of  Lincoln,  and  so  do  Beecher's 
editorials  in  the  Independent  of  1862,  and  Rhodes'  History  of 
the  United  States  (page  462),  which  shows,  too  (page  463), 
that  Senator  Wilson,  of  Massachusetts,  was  among  Lincoln's 
opponents  for  re-election  in  1864. 

Hapgood  quotes  Wendell  Phillips  about  Lincoln:  "Who  is 
this  huckster  in  politics?  Who  is  this  County  Court  lawyer?" 
Morse  gives  severe  censures  of  Lincoln  by  Wendell  Phillips. 
McClure  records  bitter  reprobation  of  him  by  Thaddeus 
Stevens.  Ida  Tarbell  calls  Sumner,  Wade,  Winter  Davis  and 
Chase  "  malicious  foes  of  Lincoln,"  on  the  authority  of  one 

to  defend  Lincoln,  but  he  thinks  fit  to  record  the  following  (History  of  the 
United  States,  Vol.  IV.,  p.  471,  note  and  p.  518),  prefacing  it  with  the  state- 
ment that  the  World  was  then  the  organ  of  the  best  element  of  the  Demo- 
cratic party;  that  the  New  York  World,  of  June  19th,  1864,  called  Lincoln  "an 
ignorant,  boorish,  third-rate,  backwoods  lawyer,"  and  reported  that  the 
spokesman  of  a  delegation  sent  to  carry  the  resolutions  of  a  great  religious 
organization  to  the  President,  publicly  denounced  him  as  "  disgracefully 
unfit  for  the  high  office  " ;  and  that  a  Republican  Senator  from  New  York 
was  reported  to  have  left  the  President's  presence  because  his  self-respect 
would  not  permit  him  to  stay  and  listen  to  the  language  he  employed. 
Rhodes  further  sets  down  "a  tradition"  that  Andrews,  the  great  War  Gover- 
nor of  Massachusetts,  when  pressing  a  matter  he  had  at  heart,  went  away 
in  disgust  at  being  put  off  by  the  President  with  "  a  smutty  story." 


Estimates  of  Lincoln.  17 

of  Lincoln's  closest  intimates,  Leonard  Swett,  and  makes  the 
remarkable  and  comprehensive  concession  that  "  about  all  the 
most  prominent  leaders  *  *  *  were  actively  opposed  to 
Lincoln,"  and  mentions  Greeley  as  their  chief.  McClure's 
Lincoln  shows  the  hostility  to  Lincoln  of  Sumner,  Trumbull  and 
Chandler,  and  of  his  Vice-President,  Hamlin. 

Fremont,  who  eight  years  before  had  received  every  Repub- 
lican vote  for  President,  charged  Lincoln  with  "  incapacity 
and  selfishness,"  with  "disregard  of  personal  rights,"  with 
"  violation  of  personal  liberty  and  liberty  of  the  press,"  with 
"  feebleness  and  want  of  principle,"  and  says:  "  The  ordinary 
rights  under  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  country  have 
been  violated";  and  he  further  accuses  Lincoln  of  "managing 
the  war  for  personal  ends." 

Holland  shows  Fremont,  Wendell  Phillips,  Fred  Douglas 
and  Greeley  as  leaders  in  the  very  nearly  successful  effort  to 
defeat  Lincoln's  second  election.  The  call  for  the  convention 
for  that  purpose,  held  in  Cleveland  May  31,  1864,  said  that  "  the 
public  liberty  was  in  danger";  that  its  object  was  to  arouse 
the  people,  "  and  bring  them  to  realize  that,  while  we  are 
saturating  Southern  soil  with  the  best  blood  of  the  country 
in  the  name  of  liberty,  we  have  really  parted  with  it  at  home."* 

McClure's  Lincoln,  recording  the  hostile  attitude  toward 
Lincoln  of  the  leading  members  of  the  Cabinet,  makes  a  con- 
cession (page  54)  comprehensive  as  Miss  Tarbell's  above: 
"  Outside  of  the  Cabinet  the  leaders  were  equally  discordant 
and  quite  as  distrustful  of  the  ability  of  Lincoln  to  fill  his 
great  office.  Sumner,  Trumbull,  Chandler,  Wade,  Winter  Davis 
and  the  men  to  whom  the  nation  then  turned  as  the  great 
representative  men  of  the  new  political  power,  did  not  conceal 
their  distrust  of  Lincoln,  and  he  had  little  support  from  them 
at  any  time  during  his  administration,"  and  McClure  says 
again  (page  289  et  seq.):  "Greeley  was  a  perpetual  thorn  in 
Lincoln's  side  *  *  *  and  almost  constantly  criticised  him 
boldly  and  often  bitterly.  *  *  *  Greeley  labored  (page  296) 

*  Hapgood's  Lincoln  (p.  164J;  Morse's  Lincoln  (Vol.  I.,  p.  177);  McClure's 
Lincoln  (p.  117  and  p.  259  and  p.  54  et  seq.  and  p.  104) ;  Ida  Tarbell,  in  McClure's 
Magazine  for  1899  (p.  277)  and  for  July,  1899  (p.  218  et  seq.),  and  Holland's  Lin- 
coln (p.  259  et  seq.) 


18  The  Real  Lincoln. 


most  faithfully  to  accomplish  Lincoln's  overthrow  in  his  great 
struggle  for  re-election  in  1864."  See  Morse's  Lincoln  (Vol.  II., 
page  193).  And  Edward  Everett  Hale's  new  book,  Lowell,  Etc. 
(page  178  et  seq.)  shows  that  even  the  circumstances  of  Lin- 
coln's death  did  not  for  a  day  abate  Greeley's  reprobation. 

The  careful  reader  will  not  fail  to  observe  that  Lincoln's 
first  term  of  four  years  was  at  this  time  nearly  over,  so  that  all 
this  bitter  censure  from  his  associates  was  based  on  full  knowl- 
edge of  him. 

Seward  has  been  much  criticised  and  accused  of  rare  pre- 
sumption for  a  letter  that  he  wrote  to  the  President  as  Secre- 
tary of  State,  one  month  after  his  first  inauguration,  because 
the  letter  manifested  a  sense  of  superiority,  and  condescend- 
ingly offered  his  advice  and  aid  and  leadership.  It  is  possible 
that  Seward  did  feel  some  of  the  contempt  for  Lincoln  that 
his  brethren  in  the  Cabinet,  Chase  and  Stanton,  never  ceased 
to  express  freely  for  Lincoln  and  very  frequently  showed  to  his 
face  throughout  their  long  terms  of  office,  as  will  be  shown. 
Like  them,  Governor  Seward  was  a  man  of  the  highest  social 
standing,  and  of  large  experience  in  the  highest  public  func- 
tions. The  Lincoln  that  so  many  now  call  a  hero  and  a  saint 
Is  exceedingly  different  from  the  Lincoln  that  the  people  who 
came  in  contact  with  him  knew  up  to  the  time  of  his  death, 
as  is  frankly  avowed  further  on  in  this  sketch  by  Adams  and 
Piatt,  and  reluctantly  conceded  by  Crittenden  and  Rhodes. 
What  he  was  capable  of  in  personal  habits,  manners  and 
morals  has  been  shown  in  the  account  of  the  "  First  Chronicle 
of  Reuben,"  and  his  submission  to  humiliations  such  as  have 
been  described  is  not  unaccountable. 

Few  were  more  ardent  Abolitionists  than  Seward,  as  shown 
in  Bancroft's  late  Life  of  him,  but  he  was  no  tiro  in  statecraft, 
and  the  policy  he  so  authoritatively  suggested  was  to  "  change 
the  question  before  the  public  from  one  upon  slavery  for  a 
question  upon  union  or  disunion." 

Lincoln  at  once  adopted  that  policy,  and  by  means  of  it 
he  precipitated  the  war.  Its  astuteness  in  distracting  men's 
minds  from  the  matter  of  slavery  has  been  much  commended. 
General  Butler  says  that  as  late  as  July,  1861,  no  one  in  power 


Estimates  of  Lincoln.  19 

was  in  favor  of  emancipation.  This  letter  of  Seward's  did  not 
come  to  light  for  years,  and  Seward  might  well  say  as  he  did, 
that  Lincoln  "  had  a  cunning  that  was  genius." 

McClure's  Lincoln,  (page  150  et  seq.)  says:  "  Stanton  had  been 
in  open  and  malignant  opposition  to  the  administration  only 
a  few  months  before."  (This  was  in  January,  1862.)  "  Stanton 
often  spoke  of  and  to  public  men,  military  and  civil,  with  a 
withering  sneer.  I  have  heard  him  scores  of  times  thus  speak 
of  Lincoln  and  several  times  thus  speak  to  Lincoln.*"  *  *  * 
"After  Stanton's  retirement  from  the  Buchanan  Cabinet,  when 
Lincoln  was  inaugurated,  he  maintained  the  closest  confi- 
dential relations  with  Buchanan,  and  wrote  him  many  letters 
expressing  the  utmost  contempt  for  Lincoln."  *  *  "  These 
letters,  *  *  *  given  to  the  public  in  Curtis'  Life  of 
Buchanan,  speak  freely  of  the  painful  imbecility  of  Lincoln, 
the  venality  and  corruption  which  ran  riot  in  the  government," 
and  McClure  goes  on:  "  It  is  an  open  secret  that  Stanton 
advised  the  revolutionary  overthrow  of  the  Lincoln  govern- 
ment, to  be  replaced  by  General  McClellan  as  Military  Dictator. 
*  *  *  These  letters,  published  by  Curtis,  bad  as  they  are, 
are  not  the  worst  letters  written  by  Stanton  to  Buchanan. 
Some  of  them  are  so  violent  in  their  expression  against  Lin- 
coln *  *  *  that  they  have  been  charitably  withheld  from 
the  public."t  Whitney,  in  his  On  Circuit  with  Lincoln  (page 
424),  tells  of  these  suppressed  letters.  See,  too,  his  pages  422 
to  424  et  seq.,  and  Ben  Perley  Poore,  in  Reminiscences  of  Lincoln 
(page  223)  and  Kasson  in  Reminiscences  of  Lincoln  (page  381), 
all  in  confirmation  of  Stanton's  estimate  and  treatment  of 
Lincoln.  Hapgood's  Lincoln  refers  (page  164)  to  Stanton's 
"  brutal  absence  of  decent  personal  feeling  "  towards  Lincoln, 
and  tells  of  Stanton's  insulting  behavior  when  they  met  five 
years  earlier,  of  which  meeting  Stanton  said  that  he  "  had 

*  McClure's  Lincoln  (p.  150  et  seq.  and  p.  155).  Yet  to  a  man  of  President 
Buchanan's  character  and  standing  Stanton  showed  an  excess  of  defer- 
ence; for  Mr.  Buchanan  complained,  in  a  letter  to  his  niece.  Miss  Harriet 
Lane,  (See  Curtis's  Life  of  Buchanan.  Vol.  II.,  p.  533)  that  Stanton,  when  in 
his  cabinet,  "  was  always  on  my  side  and  flattered  me  ad  nauseam." 

t  Hapgood's  Lincoln  (p.  254),  Gorham's  Life  of  Stanton  (Vol.  I.,  p.  213). 


20  The  Real  Lincoln. 


met  him  at  the  bar  and  found  him  a  low,  cunning  clown.'"4 
McClure  says  of  Stanton:  "  He  had  little  respect  for  Lincoln's 
fitness  for  the  presidency." 

Of  Chase,  McClure  says,  in  his  Lincoln  (page  8) :  "  Chase 
was  the  most  irritating  fly  in  the  Lincoln  ointment."  Ida 
Tarbell  says:  "  But  Mr.  Chase  was  never  able  to  realize  Mr. 
Lincoln's  greatness."  Nicolay  and  Hay's  Lincoln  says  about 
Chase:  "  Even  to  complete  strangers  he  could  not  write  with- 
out speaking  slightingly  about  the  President.  He  kept  up  this 
habit  to  the  end  of  Lincoln's  lifs."  *  *  *  "  But  his  attitude 
towards  the  President,  it  is  hardly  too  much  to  say,  was  one 
which  varied  between  the  limits  of  active  hostility  and  benevo- 
lent contempt."  Yet  none  rate  Chase  higher  than  Nicolay  and 
Hay  do  for  character,  talent  and  patriotism.  Khodes  says  Chase 
"  dealt  censure  unrestrained  to  the  President's  conduct  of  the 
war."f 

How  Far  Did  the  North  and  the  West  Approve  the  War 
and  Emancipation  ? 

The  impression  upon  the  minds  of  thousands  of  people 
about  the  War  between  the  States  may  be  formulated  as  fol- 
lows: That  at  the  firing  upon  Fort  Sumter,  the  people  of  the 
Northern  States  rose  with  one  mind  and  for  the  four  years 
of  the  war  ungrudgingly  poured  forth  their  treasure  and  shed 
their  blood  to  re-establish  the  Union  and  to  free  the  slaves. 
Let  us  consider  how  much  foundation  there  is  for  this  popular 
impression. 

In  order  to  show  the  enormous  difficulties  overcome  by  their 
hero,  Lincoln,  in  accomplishing  his  two  notable  achievements, 
his  eulogists  have  furnished  much  evidence  that  goes  to  show 

*  Ben  Perley  Poore  in  Reminiscences  of  Lincoln  (p.  223).  Ida  Tarbell  in 
McClure's  Magazine  for  March,  1899,  tells  the  story  of  this  earliest  manifesta- 
tion of  Stan  ton's  contempt  for  Lincoln.  Morse's  Lincoln  says  (Vol.  I.,  p.  327 
that  Stanton  "  carried  his  revilings  of  the  President  to  the  point  of  coarse 
personal  insults,"  and  refers  to  his  (p.  326)  "  habitual  insults." 

f  McClure's  Lincoln  (p.  156,  and  besides  pp.  130, 151,  155  and  p.  9;  Ida  Tar- 
bell in  McClure's  Magazine  for  January,  1899,  Nicolay  and  Hay's  Lincoln  (Vol. 
IX.,  p.  389,  Vol.  VI.,  p.  264),  and  elsewhere.  Rhodes'  History  of  the  United 
States  (Vol.  IV.,  p.  205). 


War  and  Emancipation.  21 

that  both  the  coercion  of  the  South  and  the  emancipation  of 
the  negroes  were  accomplished  against  the  will  of  the  Demo- 
cratic party  and  of  no  small  part  of  the  Republican  party  in 
the  North  and  the  West,  and  their  evidence  to  that  effect  will 
now  be  submitted. 

As  Abolition  had  been  talked  of  long  before  the  coercion 
of  the  South  was  thought  of,  it  seems  best  to  consider,  first, 
the  question,  How  far  did  the  North  and  the  West  approve 
emancipation? 

Let  us  examine  the  testimony  on  this  question  before  and 
after  Lincoln  became  President. 

If  the  Fugitive-Slave  laws  seem  to  any  shameful,  Andrews, 
long  president  of  Brown  University,  bitterest  of  Abolitionists, 
concedes  that  those  laws  were  passed  by  a  Congress  that  had 
a  decided  majority  of  Northern  men,  and  Lincoln  repeatedly 
pledged  himself  to  their  execution  *  and  put  such  a  pledge  into 
his  Inaugural.  Andrews  records  that  Abolition  was  opposed 
by  an  overwhelming  majority  of  the  Northern  people  and 
the  Western  people,  not  only  down  to  the  war,  but  during  the 
whole  of  it,  and  as  long  as  opposition  to  it  was  at  all  safe. 
Bitter  as  his  reprobation  of  this  public  sentiment  is,  he  frankly 
concedes  it,  and  says  that  between  1830  and  1840  "  there  was 
hardly  a  place  of  any  size  where  anyone  could  advocate  emanci- 
pation," and  that  "  by  1850  there  were  few  places  where  an 
Abolitionist  might  not  safely  speak  his  mind  ";  that  in  1841 
there  were  but  two  advocates  of  it  in  Congress,  f  "  Charles 
Francis  Adams'  Life "  records  (page  29)  that  Garrison  was 
mobbed  in  Boston  in  1835  for  being  an  Abolitionist.  See,  also, 
page  33  and  page  58.  Page  105  and  thereafter  shows  how 
ill-esteemed  and  shabby  the  Republican  party  in  Washington 
was  as  late  as  1859.  In  Edward  Everett  Hale's  lately  published 
book,  "James  Russell  Lowell,  Etc."  he  names  (page  22  et 
seq.)  a  class-mate  who  was,  he  thinks,  the  only  Abolitionist  in 
Harvard  College  in  1838,  and  says  "  Boston  as  Boston  hated 

*  Holland's  Lincoln  (p.  347). 

•h  Andrews'  History  of  the  United  States  (Vol.  II.,  p.  15).  It  describes  besides 
the  destruction  of  charitable  schools  for  negroes  and  even  of  their  homes, 
by  people  regarded  as  the  most  respectable  classes  of  society  in  Connecticut 
and  elsewhere  in  New  England  and  the  prohibition  by  law  of  schools  for 
negro  children.  See  heading  of  Chapter  IX.  in  John  A.  Logan's  Great 
Conspiracy. 


22  The  Real  Lincoln. 


Abolitionism,"  and  the  stevedores  and  longshoremen  *  *  * 
hated  "  a  nigger  "—that  Dr.  Palfrey,  once  of  the  Divinity 
Faculty  of  Harvard,  "like  most  men  with  whom  he  lived,  had 
opposed  Abolition  with  all  his  might,  his  voice  and  his  pen," 
and  he  adds  that  "  the  conflict  at  the  outset  was  not  a  crusade 
against  slavery."  The  Rev.  Henry  Ward  Beecher  said  in  an 
address  to  the  people  of  Manchester,  England,*  that  in  the 
North  "Abolitionists  were  rejected  by  society  *  *  *  * 
blighted  in  political  life  ";  that  to  be  called  an  Abolitionist 
caused  a  merchant  to  be  avoided  as  if  he  had  the  plague; 
that  the  ''doors  of  confidence  were  closed  upon  him"  in  the 
church.  Holland's  Lincoln  (page  67)  says  that  in  1830  the 
"  prevailing  sentiment "  of  Illinois  was  "  in  favor  of  slavery  " 
*  *  *  "  the  Abolitionist  was  despised  by  both  parties."  And 
George  William  Curtis  |  reproaches  his  own  people  as  follows: 
"  We  betrayed  our  own  principles,  and  those  who  would  not 
betray  them  we  reviled  as  fanatics  and  traitors;  we  made 
the  name  of  Abolitionist  more  odious  than  any  in  our  annals 
(Vol.  I.,  page  28).  If  a  man  *  *  *  died  for  liberty,  as 
Lovejoy  did  at  Alton,  he  was  called  a  fanatical  fool."  Of  the 
Bame  death  the  editor  of  the  book  says  (Vol.  I.,  page  130),  "  and 
the  country  scowled,  and  muttered  'Served  him  right.'  "J 
Curtis  goes  on,  "  The  Fugitive-Slave  law  was  vigorously  en- 
forced in  Ohio  and  other  States.  Volume  I.  (page  75  et  seq.) 
quotes  the  declaration  of  Edward  Everett  as  Governor  of 
Massachusetts,  that  "discussion  that  leads  to  insurrection  is 
an  offence  against  the  Commonwealth,"  and  quotes  Daniel 
Webster  that  "  it  is  an  affair  of  high  morals  to  aid  in 
enforcing  the  Fugitive-Slave  law."  He  quotes  (Vol.  I.,  page 
88)  a  speech  in  1859  of  Stephen  A.  Douglas  that  fully  justified 
slavery,  and  he  quotes  him  as  saying  (page  51),  "If  you  go 
over  into  Virginia  to  steal  her  negroes,  she  will  catch  you  and 
put  you  in  jail,  with  other  thieves."  In  the  same  spirit  of 
scornful  denunciation  as  the  above,  Curtis  sets  forth  (Vol.  I., 

*  See  a  collection  of  his  speeches  in  the  Pratt  Library,  Baltimore,  marked 
53866-2557. 
•{•His  Orations  (Vol.  I.,  p.  146). 

t  Lovejoy  was  an  Abolitionist  who  was  killed  by  a  mob  in  Alton,  Illinois, 
in  1836. 


War  and  Emancipation.  23 

pages  80  to  82)  the  purpose  the  North  entertained  not  to  inter- 
fere with  slavery.  "  In  other  free  States  men  were  flying  for 
their  lives;  were  mobbed,  seized,  imprisoned,  maimed,  mur- 
dered" *  *  *  And  all  this  was  as  late  as  1850.  "The 
Southern  policy  (Vol.  I.,  page  130  et  seq.)  seemed  to  conquer. 
The  church,  the  college,  trade,  fashion,  the  vast  political 
parties,  took  Calhoun's  side.  *  *  *  In  Boston,  in  Philadel- 
phia, in  New  York,  in  Utica,  in  New  Haven,  and  in  a  hundred 
villages,  when  an  American  citizen  proposed  to  say  what  he 
thought  of  a  great  public  question,  *  *  *  he  was  insulted, 
mobbed,  chased  and  maltreated."  "  The  Governor  of  Ohio 
(Vol.  I.,  page  131)  actually  delivered  a  citizen  of  that  State 
to  the  demand  of  Kentucky  to  be  tried  for  helping  a  slave  to 
escape."  Volume  I.  (page  132)  gives  Seward's  picture  of  the 
entire  unanimity  of  the  Washington  government  both  at  home 
and  abroad  in  supporting  the  Southern  side,  and  says  (page 
139),  "  Fernando  Wood  and  the  New  York  Herald  were  the 
true  spokesmen  of  the  confused  public  sentiment  of  the  city 
of  New  York,  when  one  proposed  the  secession  of  the  city  and 
the  other  proposed  the  adoption  of  the  Montgomery  Constitu- 
tion "—that  is,  the  Constitution  of  the  Confederate  States, 
which  was  adopted  at  Montgomery,  Alabama.  And  Curtis 
goes  on:  "  If  the  city  of  New  York  in  February,  1861,  had  voted 
upon  its  acceptance,  it  would  have  been  adopted."  At  page 
174,  Curtis  says,  referring  to  the  enlistment  of  negro  soldiers, 
*  *  *  "  but  I  remember  that  four  years  ago  there  were  good 
men  among  us  who  said,  '  If  white  hands  can't  win  this  fight, 
let  it  be  lost.'  "  Does  not  Curtis  here  concede  that  "  white 
hands"  did  not  win  the  fight?  Whether  he  does  or  not,  did 
not'  Lincoln  in  his  Emancipation  Proclamation  concede  that 
"  white  hands  "  could  not  or  would  not  win  the  fight,  and  did 
not  Lincoln  frequently  say  afterwards  in  defence  of  his  auto- 
cratic action,  that  but  for  his  emancipating  and  arming  the 
negroes  the  fight  would  not  have  been  won?  And — finally — 
did  the  "  white  hands "  of  the  great  North  and  West  lack 
numbers  or  wealth  or  courage  to  win  the  fight,  if  it  had  been 
their  will? 

The    popular    will    about    emancipation    was    accurately 
measured  by  the  vote  that  Fremont  got,  running  as  Free-Soil 


24  The  Real  Lincoln. 


candidate,  only  four  years  before  Lincoln's  election.  His  votes 
from  the  whole  United  States  were  only  146,149.  Schouler's 
"History  of  the  United  States"  (pages  214  et  seq.)  records 
that  General  B.  P.  Butler  offered  his  Massachusetts  brigade  to 
put  down  any  negro  insurrection,  and  that  "  few,  North  or 
South,  during  the  first  year  of  the  war,  sought,  or  approved 
emancipation."  General  B.  F.  Butler*  says:  "  If  we  had  beaten 
at  Bull  Run,  I  have  no  doubt  the  whole  contest  would  have 
been  patched  up  by  concessions  to  slavery,  as  no  one  in  power 
then  was  ready  for  its  abolition."  Lincoln  himself  said  in  his 
famous  letter  to  Greeley  in  the  Tribune,  "  If  I  could  save  the 
Union  without  freeing  any  slave  I  would  do  it." 

Hardly  any  testimony  on  the  question,  How  the  Border 
States  regarded  emancipation  could  be  better  than  Lincoln's 
own,  which  we  have.  When  a  delegation  urged  him  to  emanci- 
pate the  negroes  by  a  proclamation,  he  expressed  the  appre- 
hension f  that,  if  he  should  do  as  they  wished,  fifty  thousand 
rifles  from  the  Border  States,  then  .serving  in  the  army  of  the 
Union,  might  go  over  to  the  opposing  side;  and  Ida  Tarbell 
tells  us  in  McOlure's  Magazine  for  May,  1899,  that  Lincoln  said 
that,  if  he  should  enlist  negroes  in  his  army,  two  hundred 
thousand  muskets  that  he  had  put  into  the  hands  of  Border- 
State  men  would  be  turned  against  the  Union  army. 

The  Issue  Changed  from  Slavery  to  Saving  the  Union* 

Following,  if  not  guided  by,  Seward's  advice  showed  above, 
Lincoln  disclaimed  any  purpose  of  emancipation,  but  most 
astutely  used  the  firing  on  Fort  Sumter  to  rouse  the  war  spirit. 
The  word  "  astutely  "  is  aptly  applied,  for  the  flag  had  been 
fired  on  in  the  same  place  two  months  earlier — an  exceedingly 
important  fact  which  has  been  very  strangely  ignored,  but 
cannot  be  denied.  The  steamer  Star  of  the  West  had  been 
sent  two  months  earlier  with  food  and  two  hundred  recruits 
to  relieve  Fort  Sumter,  J  and  while  flying  the  great  flag  of  a 

*  Butler's  Book  (p.  293),  and  Phillips  Brooks  wrote  almost  exactly  the 
same  in  a  letter,  October,  1862,  Life  and  Letters,  by  Allen, 
•f-  Nicolay  and  Hay's  Lincoln. 
I  Nicolay  and  Hay's  Lincoln  (Vol.  VIII.,  p.  96  et  seq.) 


The  Issue  Changed.  25 

garrison,  was  fired  on,  hit  twice,  and  driven  away — "  retired 
a  little  ignominiously,"  Morse  reports  it* — and  he  adds  that 
Senator  Wigfall  jeered  insolently:  "Your  flag  has  been  in- 
sulted, redress  it  if  you  dare."  George  William  Curtis  f  de- 
plores that  they  "  were  unable  or  unwilling  to  avenge  a  mortal 
insult  to  our  own  flag  in  our  own  waters  upon  the  Star  of  the 
West."  Ropes  and  ChanningJ  give  a  like  description  of  the 
occurrence.  Russell  writes  to  the  London  Times  from  America: 
£"It  is  absurd  to  assert  *  *  *  that  the  sudden  outburst 
when  Fort  Sumter  was  fired  upon  was  caused  by  the  insult 
to  the  flag.  Why,  the  flag  had  been  fired  on  long  before 
Sumter  was  attacked  *  *  *  it  had  been  torn  down  from 
the  United  States  arsenals  and  forts  all  over  the  South  and 
fired  upon  when  the  Federal  flag  was  flying  from  the  Star  of 
the  West."  He  says,  too,  "  secession  was  an  accomplished  fact 
months  before  Lincoln  came  into  office,  but  we  heard  no  talk 
of  rebels  and  pirates  till  Sumter  had  fallen.  *  *  *  The 
North  was  perfectly  quiescent."  Rhodes  says  that  Chase  called 
it  "  an  accomplished  revolution,"  when  Lincoln  entered  on  the 
presidency.  || 

This  "  firing  on  the  flag  "  on  the  Star  of  the  West  produced 
no  sensation  at  all,  but  was  accepted  by  the  whole  country 
as  an  accompaniment  of  the  secession  of  the  States. 

We  have  learned  afresh  of  late  the  meaning  of  the  words 
used  above,  "  to  rouse  the  War  Spirit."  A  very  respectable 
part  of  the  wisdom  and  virtue  of  this  country  deplore  and 
reprobate  the  war  now  waging  by  the  United  States,  and  yet 
they  do  make  and  can  make  no  opposition,  but  support  the 
war  just  as  those  do  who  approve  it  most  warmly.  We  know 
now  that  a  war,  once  begun,  sweeps  into  its  support,  not  only 
the  regular  army,  the  navy,  the  Treasury,  but  volunteer  organi- 
zations and  the  youth  of  the  country,  who  think  they  must 
respond  to  any  national  call  for  arms. 

*  Morse's  Lincoln  (Vol.  L,  p.  196;. 
•}•  Orations  (Vol.  I.,  p.  141). 

I  Ropes  Story  of  the  Civil   War  (Pt.  I.,  p.  45.     Channing's  Short  History  of  the 
United  States  (p.  313). 

§  Russell's  Diary  North  and  South  (p.  72  et  seq.,  and  p.  131  et  seg,) 
H  Rhodes'  History  of  the  United  States  (Vol.  III.,  p.  843). 


26  The  Real  Lincoln. 


How  Far  Did  the  North  and  the  West  Approve  Forcing 
Back  the  South  Into  the  Union  ? 

The  authorities  we  quote  have  put  on  record  ample  proof 
of  a  widespread  conviction  in  the  North  and  the  West  in 
1861  that  the  use  of  force  to  retain  States  in  the  Union  was 
not  only  inadmissible  under  the  Constitution,  but  abhorrent 
to  the  principles  on  which  their  political  institutions  rested. 

Russell  in  his  Diary  (page  13)  quotes  Bancroft,  the  his- 
torian, afterwards  Minister  to  England,  for  the  opinion  in  1860 
that  the  United  States  had  no  authority  to  coerce  the  people 
of  the  South;  which  opinion,  Bancroft  told  Russell,  was  widely 
entertained  among  the  most  prominent  men  of  all  classes  in 
the  North;  and  Russell  reports  the  same  opinion  as  prevailing 
in  March,  1861  (page  14  et  seq.)  in  New  York  and  in  Washing- 
ton— and  that  there  was  "  little  sympathy  with  and  no  respect 
for  (page  15)  Lincoln."  He  found  Senator  Sumner  and  Secre- 
tary Chase  disposed  to  let  the  Southern  States  "  go  out  with 
their  slavery." 

The  Life  of  Charles  Francis  Adams,  Lincoln's  Minister  to 
England,  says  (page  49  et  seq.)  that  "  up  to  the  very  day  of 
the  firing  on  the  flag,  the  attitude  of  the  Northern  States,  even 
in  case  of  hostilities,  was  open  to  grave  question,  while  that  of 
the  Border  States  did  not  admit  of  a  doubt "  *  *  *  "  that 
Mr.  Seward,  the  member  of  the  President's  Cabinet  in  charge 
of  foreign  affairs,  both  in  his  official  papers  and  his  private 
talk,  repudiated  not  only  the  right,  but  the  wish  even  to  use 
armed  force  in  subjugating  the  Southern  States  against  the 
will  of  a  majority  of  the  people,  and  declared  that  the  President 
willingly  (page  151)  accepted  as  true  the  cardinal  dogma  of 
the  seceding  States,  that  the  Federal  Government  had  no 
authority  for  coercion;  *  *  *  and  all  this  time  (page  150) 
the  Southern  sympathizers  throughout  the  '  loyal '  States 
were  earnest  and  outspoken." 

General  B.  P.  Butler  records  that  Henry  Dunning,  Mayor 
of  Hartford,  called  the  City  Council  together  "  to  consult  if 
my  troops  should  be  allowed  to  go  through  Hartford  on  the 


Forcing  Back  the  South.  27 

way  to  the  war.  He  was  a  true,  loyal  man,  but  did  not  believe 
in  having  a  war.  *  *  *  He  was  a  patriot  to  the  core."* 

Morse's  Lincoln  (Vol.  I.,  p.  231)  makes  the  following  re- 
markable statement:  "  Greeley  and  Seward  and  Wendell 
Phillips,  representative  men,  were  little  better  than  seces- 
sionists. The  statement  sounds  ridiculous,  yet  the  proof 
against  each  comes  from  his  own  mouth.  The  Tribune  had 
retracted  none  of  those  disunion  sentiments  of  which  examples 
have  been  given. "f 

Even  so  late  as  April  10,  1861,  Seward  wrote  officially  to 
Charles  Francis  Adams,  Minister  to  England,  "  Only  an  im- 
perial and  despotic  government  could  subjugate  thoroughly 
disaffected  and  insurrectionary  members  of  the  State."  On 
April  9th  the  rumor  of  a  fight  at  Sumter  being  spread  abroad, 
Wendell  Phillips  said,  "  Here  are  a  series  of  States  girding  the 
Gulf  who  think  that  their  peculiar  institutions  require  that 
they  should  have  a  separate  government;  they  have  a  right  to 
decide  that  question  without  appealing  to  you  and  to  me 
*  *  *  Standing  with  the  principles  of  '76  behind  us,  who 
can  deny  them  the  right?  *  *  *  Abraham  Lincoln  has  no 
right  to  a  soldier  in  Fort  Sumter  *  *  *  you  cannot  go 
through  Massachusetts  and  recruit  men  to  bombard  Charleston 
and  New  Orleans."  Morse  is  comprehensive  in  his  statement 
of  the  position  taken  by  the  Republicans,  saying  of  Lincoln's 
early  days  in  Washington:  *  *  *  "  None  of  the  distin- 
guished men,  leaders  of  his  own  party  whom  Lincoln  found 
about  him  at  Washington,  were  in  a  frame  of  mind  to  assist 
him  efficiently."  Andrews  deplores  the  fact  that  "  coolness 
and  absurd  prejudice  against  coercing  largely  possessed  even 
the  loyal  masses,"  and  that  (Vol.  II.,  page  95)  "  throughout  the 
North  the  feeling  was  strong  against  all  efforts  at  coercion." 
McClure  says:  "  Even  in  Philadelphia  *  *  *  nearly  the 
whole  commercial  and  financial  interests  were  arrayed  against 
Lincoln  at  first.  "J  Woodrow  Wilson's  Division  and  Reunion 


*  Butler'?,  Hook  (p.  29S) ;  Ropes'  Story  of  the  Civil  War  (Pt.  I.,  p.  14  et  seq); 
Morse's  Lincoln  (Vol.  1,  p.  190).  and  Greeley's  American  Conflict  (p.  91  et  seq.) 

i  Morse  and  others  quote,  from  Greeley's  editorials  in  his  Tribune,  repeated 
bitter  censures  of  forcing  the  seceded  States  back  into  the  Union. 

|  Morse's  Lincoln  (Vol.  I.,  p.  223  and  p.  4) ;  McClure's  Our  Presidents  (p.  177). 


28  The  Real  Lincoln. 


says  (page  214)  that  "  President  Buchanan  agreed  with  his 
Attorney-General  that  there  was  no  constitutional  means  or 
warrant  for  coercing  a  State "  (as  indeed  his  last  message 
shows  beyond  doubt),  and  adds  that  "  such  for  the  time  seemed 
to  be  the  general  opinion  of  the  country." 

For  months  after  the  secession  of  South  Carolina,  while  the 
other  States  were  successively  passing  ordinances  of  secession 
and  seizing  the  forts,  arsenals,  etc.,  within  their  boundaries, 
the  government  at  Washington,  President,  Cabinet,  Supreme 
Court  and  Congress,  took  not  one  step  toward  coercion,  nor 
did  either  house  of  Congress  listen  to  a  suggestion  of  emanci- 
pation. These  Senators  and  Representatives  were  from  the 
North  and  the  West  only,  and  we  may  surely  conclude  that, 
at  so  critical  a  period  they  ascertained  and  carried  out  the 
will  of  their  constituents.  See  the  testimony  of  Butler's  Book, 
that  "  during  the  whole  War  of  the  Rebellion  the  government 
was  rarely  ever  aided,  but  usually  impeded  by  the  decisions 
of  the  Supreme  Court,  so  that  the  President  was  obliged  to 
suspend  the  writ  of  Habeas  Corpus  in  order  to  relieve  himself 
from  the  rulings  of  the  court."  This  is  stated  by  General 
Butler  quite  seriously  and  not,  as  might  possibly  be  supposed, 
in  any  satirical  mood.  Ropes'  Story  of  the  Civil  War  (pt  I., 
page  19)  says:  "It  is  true  that  during  the  winter  of  1860 
Congress  took  no  action  whatever  looking  toward  preparation 
for  the  conquest  of  the  outgoing  States."  *  *  *  From  page 
355  to  553  of  the  first  volume  of  Greeley's  American  Conflict 
there  is  little  but  a  record  of  the  opposition  to  coercion  of  the 
South  in  the  "  loyal  "  States.  Pages  357  et  seq.  and  354  et  seq. 
show  the  action  of  the  Legislatures  of  New  Jersey  and  Illinois, 
both  nearly  unanimous,  in  the  same  direction.  See,  also  (Vol. 
I.,  page  380  et  seq.)  the  very  strong  support  given  to  the  amend- 
ment of  the  Constitution  proposed  by  one  whom  Greeley  called 
"  the  venerable  and  Union-loving  Crittenden  of  Kentucky," 
which  amendment  guaranteed  ample  protection  to  slavery,  and 
it  could  have  been  passed  in  Congress  but  for  the  fact  that 
they  knew  the  South  thought  the  time  for  compromise  was 
past. 

Greeley  describes  (page  387  ct  seq.)  a  tremendous  demon- 
stration against  the  war  made  by  New  York  State  in  February, 


Forcing  Back  the  South.  29 

1861,  in  which  her  leaders  promised  about  all  the  South  could 
ask.  In  this,  as  in  the  New  York  State  Democratic  Conven- 
tion, which  he  describes  as  "  probably  the  strongest  and  most 
imposing  assembly  of  delegates  ever  convened  in  the  State  " 
(page  392  et  seq.),  Greeley  records  expressions  of  the  purpose, 
not  only  not  to  coerce,  but  to  aid  the  South  in  case  of  war, 
which  expressions  were  heard  with  applause;  and  in  a  speech 
of  James  S.  Thayer,  it  was  alleged  that  these  views  had  been 
asserted  in  the  last  election  by  333,000  votes  in  New  York. 
Greeley  further  makes  the  following  very  remarkable  state- 
ment: "  That  throughout  the  Free  States  eminent  and  eager 
advocates  of  adhesion  to  the  new  Confederacy  by  those  States 
were  widely  heard  and  heeded."  For  more  evidence  to  the  same 
effect  of  the  feeling  of  the  North  and  the  West,  see  McCall's 
Life  of  Thad.  Stevens  (pages  122  to  132  et  seq.,  page  211  et  seq. 
and  page  219  et  seq.).  The  Life  of  Hannibal  Hamlin,  Lincoln's 
Vice-President,  quotes  Hamlin  (page  459) :  "  If  we  had  had  a 
common  union  in  the  North  and  a  common  loyalty  to  the 
government,  we  could  have  ended  this  Civil  War  months  ago, 
but  this  aid  and  comfort  the  rebels  had  received  from  the 
Northern  allies  *  *  * " 

The  advocacy  of  views  strongly  adverse  to  the  war  and  to 
emancipation  did  not  cease  in  the  North  and  the  West  when 
the  war  began,  dangerous  as  it  soon  became  to  advocate  them. 
Imprisonment  without  trial,  trials  by  court-martial,  sentences 
to  confinement  in  prisons  or  fortresses  remote  from  home  and 
friends,  did  reduce  at  last  to  silence  all  but  the  boldest— even 
Missourians,  Kentuckians  and  Marylanders;  and  similar 
methods  of  repression  were  used  in  States  remotest  from  the 
scenes  of  the  war.  Russell's  Diary  (page  198)  mentions  the 
news  that  *  *  *  "  members  of  the  Maryland  Legislature 
have  been  seized  by  the  Federal  authorities."  This  is  of  date 
September  11,  1861.  See  Dunning's  Essays  on  the  Civil  War,  etc. 
(Pages  19,  21  et  seq.) 

Rhodes'  History  of  the  United  States  (Vol.  IV.,  page  165) 
describes  minutely  the  imprisonments  at  different  times  and 
places  of  two  men  of  Indiana  (Olds  and  Walk),  who,  he  says, 
enjoyed  before,  then,  and  thereafter  the  highest  respect  and 
confidence  of  their  neighbors  and  constituents,  and  were 


30  The  Heal  Lincoln. 


honored  by  them  the  more  for  their  sufferings,  and  Dunning 
instances  these  as  samples  of  much  other  such  treatment  of 
those  who  opposed  the  war  and  emancipation. 

Gorham's  Life  of  Stanton  quotes  a  proclamation  of  Stanton 
as  Secretary  of  War  issued  in  justification  of  Lincoln's  usurpa- 
tion of  despotic  power  over  liberty  and  life,  which  sets  forth 
(Vol.  1.,  page  264  et  seq.)  that  he  found  "  treason  "  everywhere — 
in  "  Senate,  House  of  Representatives,  *  *  *  the  Cabinet, 
the  foreign  Ministers,  *  *  *  land  and  naval  forces,  *  *  * 
revenue,  *  *  *  post  office,  *  *  *  territorial  govern- 
ments and  Indian  reserves,  judges,  governors,  legislators,  *  * 
even  in  the  most  loyal  regions;  secret  societies  *  *  *  with 
perverted  sympathies  *  *  *  furnishing  men  and  money  to 
the  insurgents,  *  *  *  fortifications,  navy-yards,  arsenals 
betrayed  or  abandoned  to  the  insurgents,  *  *  *  voluntary 
enlistment  ceasing,"  *  *  *  &c. 

In  New  York  State,  Governor  Horatio  Seymour  had  enor- 
mous backing  in  his  open  opposition,  as  partly  shown  above, 
to  the  war  before  it  began,  and  in  opposition  to  it  and  emanci- 
pation, so  far  as  was  possible,  to  the  end.  Schouler's  History 
of  the  United  States  (page  417  et  seq.)  concedes  that  the  State 
of  New  York  was  "  obstructive  to  the  President's  wishes  " — a 
mode  of  expression  which  is  significant — and  records  that  Sey- 
mour said  in  his  Inaugural  as  Governor  that  "  the  conscription 
act  was  believed  by  one-half  the  people  of  the  loyal  States  a 
violation  of  the  supreme  constitutional  law."  For  his  view 
of  the  purpose  for  which  that  act  was  procured,  see  Nicolay 
and  Hay's  Lincoln  (Vol.  VI.,  page  22  et  seq.),  which  alleges  that 
both  Governor  Seymour  and  Archbishop  Hughes,  not  only 
made  friendly  addresses  to  the  mob  that  was  forcibly  stopping 
the  draft  in  New  York  city,  but  manifested  a  measure  of 
sympathy  with  its  purpose;  that  Seymour  in  his  address  called 
the  war  "  the  ungodly  conflict  that  is  distracting  the  land," 
and  said  that  the  purpose  of  the  draft  was  "  to  stuff  ballot 
boxes  with  bogus  soldier  votes."  Yet  they  concede  that,  in 
spite  of  all  this,  Seymour  was  (Vol.  VI.,  pages  9  to  26)  "  then 
and  to  his  death  the  most  honored  Democratic  politician  in 
the  State."  And  this  is  shown  beyond  all  question  by  the  fact 
that,  after  the  war  was  over  he  was  selected  by  the  National 


Forcing  Back  the  South.  31 

Democratic  party  as  its  candidate  for  the  Presidency.  They 
attest  also  unstintedly  Seymour's  integrity  and  patriotism. 

In  the  State  of  Ohio,  Vallandigham's  following  in  his  re- 
sistance was  so  strong  that  he  was  banished  by  order  of 
President  Lincoln — a  penalty  not  before  known  to  the  country, 
and  "  not  for  deeds  done,  but  for  words  spoken,"  to  use  the 
language  in  which  it  was  denounced  by  John  Sherman,  and 
these  were  words  that  had  been  spoken  in  public  debate  and 
received  with  wild  applause  by  thousands  of  his  constituents.* 

In  Indiana  Governor  Morton  got  from  Lincoln,  through 
Stanton,  aid  by  which  he  usurped  every  function  of  the  govern- 
ment of  the  State,  entirely  overruling  the  will  of  the  people; 
conclusive  evidence  of  which  makes  up  a  large  part  of  the  first 
volume  of  Foulke's  Life  of  Governor  Morton,  published  as  late 
as  1899;  nor  is  it  recorded  in  censure  of  Morton.  Chapter 
XXII.  is  headed  "  I  am  the  State,"  and  begins,  "  Morton  accom- 
plished what  had  never  before  been  attempted  in  American 
history.  For  two  years  he  carried  on  the  government  of  a 
great  State  solely  by  his  own  personal  energy,  raising  money 
without  taxation  on  his  own  responsibility  and  distributing  it 
through  bureaus  organized  by  himself."  French's  Life  of  Morton 
says  (page  423)  that  at  the  commencement  of  the  year  1863 
*  *  *  the  secret  enemies  of  the  government  *  *  *  had 
succeeded  in  the  election  of  an  Indiana  Legislature,  which 
"  was  principally  composed  of  men  sworn  to  oppose  to  the 
bitter  end  the  prosecution  of  the  war,  with  the  purpose  of 
encouraging  the  enemies  of  American  liberty  in  their  work  of 
rebellion  and  destruction."  Nicolay  and  Hay's  Lincoln-^  con- 
firms the  above  account  of  Indiana,  and  says  that,  but  for 
Governor  Morton  the  Indiana  Legislature  would  have  recog- 
nized the  Confederacy  and  "  dissolved  the  federal  relation  with 
the  United  States."  They  givej  a  full  account  of  the  "  dis- 

*  Sherman's  Recollections  (Vol.  I.,  p.  323),  and  Holland's  Lincoln  (p.  471  etseq.). 
who  tells,  too,  of  the  bitter  reprobation  this  provoked  in  New  York. 
Nicolay  and  Hay  tell  (Vol.  VII.,  p.  828)  about  the  same  story  of  Vallandig- 
ham  and  of  the  resentment  (p.  341)  in  New  York. 

•KVol.  VIII.,  p.  Setseg.) 
t  (Vol.  VIII.,  p.  29etseg.) 


32  The  Real  Lincoln. 


loyalty"  in  the  North  and  the  West,  and  say,  too,* that  "in 
the  Western  States  the  words  Democrat  and  Copperhead 
became  after  January,  1863,  practically  synonymous,  and  a 
cognomen  applied  as  a  reproach  was  assumed  with  pride." 
Professor  Channing,  of  Harvard,  says:f  "  In  the  Mississippi 
Valley  hundreds  of  thousands  of  men  either  sympathized  with 
the  slave-holders  or  cared  nothing  about  the  slavery  dispute." 
George  S.  Boutwell  says  ;t  "  With  varying  degrees  of  intensity 
the  Democratic  party  of  the  North  sympathized  with  the  South, 
and  arraigned  Lincoln  and  the  Republican  party  for  all  that 
the  country  was  called  to  endure.  During  the  entire  period 
of  the  war  New  York,  Ohio  and  Illinois  were  doubtful  States, 
and  Indiana  was  kept  in  line  only  by  the  active  and  desperate 
fidelity  of  Oliver  P.  Morton."  $  Secretary  Wells,  of  Lincoln's 
Cabinet,  says  (Atlantic  Monthly,  Vol.  XVI.,  page  266) :  "  The 
Democrats  were  in  sympathy  with  the  rebels  *  *  *  and 
opposed  to  the  war  itself." 

Probably  few  will  question  that  the  Border  States  disap- 
proved the  coercion  of  the  South  and  emancipation,  but  see 
the  following:  Ropes  says,  "  and  though  Maryland,  Kentucky 
and  Missouri  remained  in  the  Union, |j  yet  the  feeling  of  a  con- 
siderable part  of  the  people  in  those  States  in  favor  of  the 
new  movement  was  so  strong — aided  as  it  was  by  the  convic- 
tion that  their  States  would  have  seceded  but  for  the  active 
interference  of  the  United  States  Government — that  the  South- 
ern cause  received  substantial  aid  from  each  of  them."  How 
"  considerable  a  part  of  the  people  "  it  was  may  be  inferred 
from  the  fact  that  a  proclamation  from  the  War  Department 
was  addressed  to  Marylanders  to  declare  regret  for  having  to 
keep  so  large  a  number  of  their  fellow  citizens  in  prisons,  and 
that  public  policy  did  not  admit  of  their  being  brought  to  trial 
or  allowed  to  know  the  charges  on  which  they  were  arrested; 

*  (Vol.  IV.,  p.  234). 

H-Channing's  Short  History  of  the  United  States  (p.  314). 

J  Abraham  Lincoln  Tributes  from  his  Associates  (p.  85  et  seg.) 

§  See  letter  of  Morton  to  Stanton  reporting  a  formidable  effort  of  citizens 
and  soldiers  of  Indiana  'to  withdraw  from  the  Union.  Rhodes'  History  of 
the  United  States  (Vol.  IV.,  p.  223). 

||  Missouri  seceded,  October  31,1861,  and  Kentucky  seceded,  November  20 
1861.— Note  by  Editor. 


Forcing  Back  the  South.  33 

and  the  lately  published  Recollections  of  Charles  A.  Dana  record 
with  complacency  (page  236  et  seq.)  among  his  experiences  as 
Assistant  Secretary  of  War,  the  arrest  in  one  day  of  ninety- 
seven  of  the  leading  people  in  Baltimore  and  their  imprison- 
ment in  Washington,  "  mostly  in  solitary  confinement." 

Everywhere  there  were  men  who  made  more  or  less  bitter 
protest  or  resistance  against  such  subversion  (by  methods 
known  only  to  the  Sultan  or  the  Czar),  of  what  Americans  had 
been  taught  to  call  the  conditions  of  freedom — a  free  press, 
free  speech,  the  writ  of  Habeas  Corpus,  and  Trial  by  Jury.  In 
Cincinnati,  in  Chicago,  in  Boston  and  elsewhere,  demonstra- 
tions toward  violent  resistance  very  alarming  to  the  Adminis- 
tration at  Washington  were  suppressed  with  the  strong  hand 
before  coming  to  a  head.  Gilmore's  Personal  Recollections  of 
Lincoln  speaks  (page  199)  of  "  the  wide  Western  Conspiracy 
so  opportunely  strangled  in  Chicago,"  and  devotes  a  chapter  to 
it.  John  A.  Logan's  Great  Conspiracy  (page  557)  records  "  a 
gathering  at  Springfield,  Illinois  (Lincoln's  home),  June  13, 
1863,  of  nearly  one  hundred  thousand  Vallandigham,  Anti-War, 
Peace,  Democrats,  which  utterly  repudiated  the  war."  See,  also, 
page  559  et  seq.  For  account  of  "  avowed  hostility  to  Lincoln  " 
in  Philadelphia,  New  York  and  Boston,  and  of  opposition  in 
New  Jersey  that  "  made  the  State  disgraceful,"  see  Allen's 
Life  and  Letters  of  Phillips  Brooks,  Vol.  I.,  page  448.  Of  Massa- 
chusetts, we  learn  the  following  from  General  B.  F.  Butler* — 
"  Massachusetts  had  the  disgrace  of  a  draft,  intensified  by  the 
disgrace  of  a  draft-riot,  which  had  to  be  put  down  by  force  of 
arms."  General  Rosecrans  reported  to  Washington  the  existence 
in  the  Western  States  of  secret  orders  of  men  bound  by  oath 
to  co-operate  with  the  Confederates  to  the  number  of  four 
hundred  thousand  men.  Nicolay  and  Hay  say  that  three  hun- 
dred and  fifty  thousand  was  an  exaggerated  estimate  of  their 
numbers. 

When  the  storm  was  rising  there  came  from  the  Democratic 
leaders  in  the  "  loyal  "  States  as  distinct  asseverations  of  the 
wrongs  the  South  was  enduring,  as  full  assurances  that  the 

*  Butler's  Book  (p.  306). 
3 


34  The  Real  Lincoln. 


South  had  the  right  to  withdraw  from  the  partnership,  as  full 
denial  of  any  possible  right  in  the  Federal  Government  to  use 
coercion,  as  any  Southern  leader  ever  set  forth;  with  further 
assurances  that  the  Democrats  of  the  North  and  the  West 
would  fight  on  the  Southern  side  in  any  appeal  to  arms. 

The  extreme  Abolitionists  also  bitterly  opposed  the  war. 
Theodore  Roosevelt's  Cromwell,  just  from  the  press,  says  (page 
103),  that  at  the  close  of  the  war  "the  Garrison  *  *  *  or 
disunion  Abolitionists  *  *  *  had  seen  their  cause  triumph, 
not  through,  but  in  spite  of  their  efforts."  And  Gorham's  Life 
of  Stanton  (page  163  et  seq.)  says:  "  The  Republicans  *  *  * 
were  divided  into  two  classes,  one  which  desired  separation, 
etc.,  *  *  *"  and  (Vol.  I.,  page  193)  tells  of  "a  new  element, 
headed  by  prominent  Republican  leaders  like  Greeley  and 
Chase,  who  thought  that  a  union  of  non-slave-holding  States 
would  be  preferable  to  any  attempt  to  maintain  by  force  the 
Union  with  the  slave-holding  States."  Observe  how  exactly 
these  conclusions  agreed  with  the  conclusions  to  which  the 
Southern  leaders  had  come. 

A  letter  of  Chase  quoted  in  his  Life  by  Warden  (page  363 
et  seq.)  says:  "  It  is  precisely  because  they  anticipate  abolition 
as  the  result  that  the  Garrison  Abolitionists  desire  disunion." 
Schouler  says  of  Garrison,  Phillips  and  their  immediate  fol- 
lowers:*" They  were  the  avowed  disunionists  on  the  Northern 
side."  *  *  * 

In  spite  of  the  support  of  the  war  forced  on  the  Democracy, 
as  above  described,  they  made  a  steady  struggle  in  the  courts, 
in  Congress,  and  in  the  State  governments  to  keep  down  the 
war  to  constitutional  limits  as  far  as  possible,  and  to  such 
conditions  as  might  leave  room  for  reconciliation  in  the  future. 
Vallandigham's  and  Seymour's  conduct  furnish  examples,  and 
General  McClellan's  is  another  example.  For  years  no  pains 
were  spared  to  cry  down  General  McClellan  in  vindication 
of  Lincoln's  dealings  with  him,  but  evidence  of  the  truth 
has  been  too  strong.  Even  Nicolay  and  Hay  have  to 
concede  to  McClellan  the  very  highest  praise  for  pure  patriot- 
ism, and  the  concessions  have  grown  greater  with  each 
succeeding  historian  till  Rhodes,  one  of  the  ablest,  deplores 

*Schouler's  History  of  the  United  States  (Vol.  VI., p.  225). 


Forcing  Back  the  South.  35 

the  fact  that  Lincoln  could  not  see  McClellan  as  we  see  him, 
and  that  Lincoln  deferred  the  capture  of  Richmond  and  the 
downfall  of  the  Confederacy  for  two  years  by  removing  McClel- 
lan from  command  of  the  army.*  Ropes  passes  hardly  less 
severe  censure  on  Lincoln  for  his  dealings  with  McClellan,f  and 
Rhodes  and  Ropes  are  very  hostile  critics  of- McClellan.  See 
John  Fiske's  Mississippi  Valley  in  the  Civil  War  (page  148  et 
seq.),  and  his  quotation  of  censure  of  Lincoln  to  the  same 
effect  from  the  Count  of  Paris.  See  Ida  Tarbell  in  McClure's 
Magazine  for  May,  1899,  pages  192  to  199  et  seq. 

In  this  connection  there  are  some  unconscious  betrayals  of 
the  real  estimate  of  Lincoln  that  was  entertained  by  a  number 
of  his  most  ardent  eulogists.  Six  of  his  eulogists  have  thought 
it  worth  while,  if  not  necessary,  to  declare  very  expressly  their 
belief  that  Lincoln  did  not  purposely  betray  General  McClellan 
and  his  army  in  the  Seven-Days'  battles  before  Richmond.^ 
McClellan,  in  his  celebrated  dispatch  after  his  retreat  re- 
proached Stanton  with  this  atrocious  crime,  and  so  worded 
the  dispatch  that  he  imputed  the  same  guilt  to  Lincoln. 
McClure's  Lincoln,  &c.  (page  102)  and  Nicolay  an,d  Hay's 
Lincoln  (pages  441,  442  and  451)  deplore  that  McClellan  should 
have  believed  Lincoln  capable  of  it,  both  conceding  to  McClel- 
lan the  most  exalted  character,  ability  and  patriotism. 

Of  Lincoln's  dealing  with  McClellan,  McClure  says:  "  Many 
charged,  as  did  McClellan,  that  he  had  been,  with  his  army, 
deliberately  betrayed  by  the  Secretary  of  War,  if  not  by 
Lincoln."  $ 

When  Lincoln  refused  to  hear  at  all,  or  see,  the  Southern 
commissioners — Clement  Clay  and  James  P.  Holcombe — unless 
they  could  show  "  written  authority  from  Jefferson  Davis  "  to 

*  Rhodes'  History  of  the  United  States  (Vol.  IV.,  p.  109,  and  p.  106  etseg.,  and 
p.  117). 

i  Ropes'  Story  of  the  Civil  ..War  (Pt.  II.,  p.  132  et  seg.,  p.  442  et  seg.,  and  p 
met  seg.) 

|  McClure's  Lincoln  (p.  207);  Holland's  Lincoln  (p.  53  et  seg.);  Ropes'  Story  of 
the  Civil  War  (Pt.  II.,  pp.116,  171,  and  in  another  place,  Rhodes'  History  of 
the  United  Siates  (Vol.  IV.,  p.  550  et  seg.);  Hon.  George  S.  Boutwell,  in 
Tributes  from  his  Associates  (p.  69);  Schouler's  History  of  the  United  States  (p. 
193  et  seg.) 

$  McClure's  Lincoln,  etc.  (pp.  208, 248),  and  Nicolay  and  Hay's  Lincoln  (Vol. 
VI.,  p.  189  etseg.) 


36  The  Real  Lincoln. 


make  unconditional  surrender,  Greeley,  who  had  procured  their 
coming  to  negotiate  a  cessation  of  the  war,  protested  against 
Lincoln's  action  as  follows  in  a  letter  written  him  in  July, 
1864:*  "Our  bleeding,  bankrupt,  almost  dying  country  longs 
for  peace,  shudders  at  the  prospect  of  fresh  conscriptions,  of 
further  wholesale  devastations,  and  new  rivers  of  human  blood; 
and  there  is  a  widespread  conviction  that  the  Government  and 
its  supporters  are  not  anxious  for  peace  and  do  not  improve 
proffered  opportunities  to  achieve  it." 

Greeley  further  intimates  (page  482)  the  possibility  of  a 
Northern  insurrection.  Charles  A.  Dana,  Lincoln's  Secretary 
of  War,  says  in  his  Recollections  of  the  Civil  War,  that  in  April, 
1862,  Greeley  "  was  for  peace."  Nicolay  and  Hay  (Vol.  IX., 
pages  184  to  200)  describe  the  transaction  above  as  "  Horace 
Greeley's  Peace  Mission."  The  Life  of  Hamlin  (page  437)  says 
Greeley  called  the  above  letter  "  the  prayer  of  twenty  millions 
of  people." 

General  U.  S.  Grant,  in  trying  to  show  that  he  had  not 
the  enormous  advantage  that  he  is  usually  said  to  have  had 
in  the  far  greater  number  of  people  from  whom  he  drew  his 
army,  makes  serious  concessions  as  to  the  indifference  of  the 
people  at  large  in  the  "  loyal  "  States  to  the  cause  he  fought 
for,  and  the  bitter  hostility  to  it  of  a  vast  number  of  them. 
He  says  of  the  Southern  army,  in  his  Memoir  (Vol.  II.,  page 
500  et  seq) :  "  No  rear  had  to  be  protected.  All  the  troops  in  the 
service  could  be  brought  to  the  front  to  contest  every  inch 
of  the  ground  threatened  with  invasion.  The  press  of  the 
South,  like  the  people  who  remained  at  home,  was  loyal  to  the 
Southern  cause."  Again  (page  502) :  "  In  the  North  the  press 
was  free  to  the  point  of  open  treason,  *  *  *  troops  were 
necessary  in  the  Northern  States  to  prevent  prisoners  from 
the  Southern  army  being  released  by  outside  force,  armed  and 
set  at  large  *  *  *  The  copperhead  *  *  *  press  magni- 
fied rebel  successes  and  belittled  those  of  the  Northern  army. 
It  was,  with  a  large  following,  an  auxiliary  to  the  Confederate 
army.  The  North  would  have  been  much  stronger  with  a 
hundred  thousand  of  these  men  in  the  Confederate  ranks  and 

*  Holland's  Lincoln  (p.  478). 


Attitude  of  Union  Soldiers.  37 

the  rest  of  their  kind  thoroughly*  subdued  *  *  *  It  would 
have  been  an  offence,  directly  after  the  war,  and  perhaps  it 
would  be  now  (Grant's  Memoir  is  dated  1886)  to  ask  any  able- 
bodied  man  in  the  South  who  was  between  the  ages  of  fourteen 
and  sixty  at  any  time  during  the  war  whether  he  had  been 
in  the  Confederate  army.  He  would  assert  that  he  was,  or 
account  for  his  absence  from  the  ranks."  See,  too,  page  35. 

Attitude  of  Union  Soldiers  Toward  Coercion  and  Eman- 
cipation* 

« 

On  this  we  get  a  strange  enlightenment  in  the  account 
given  by  Russell  in  his  Diary  (page  155  et  seq.)  of  his  meeting 
the  Fourth  Pennsylvania  Regiment  going  home  from  the  Bull 
Run  battlefield  to  the  sound  of  the  cannon  that  opened  the 
battle.  A  note  on  page  553  of  Greeley's  American  Conflict  de- 
scribes the  same  from  General  McDowell's  official  report  of 
the  battle  of  Bull  Run— how  on  the  eve  of  the  battle  the  Fourth 
Pennsylvania  Regiment  of  Volunteers  and  the  battery  of 
artillery  of  the  Eighth  New  York  Militia,  whose  term  of  ser- 
vice had  expired,  insisted  on  their  discharge,  though  the 
General  and  the  Secretary  of  War,  both  on  the  spot,  tried  hard 
to  make  them  stay  five  more  days  *  *  *  and  the  next 
morning,  when  the  army  moved  into  battle,  these  troops  moved 
to  the  rear  to  the  sound  of  the  enemy's  guns.  Greeley  goes 
on  to  say:  "  It  should  here  be  added  that  a  member  of  the 
New  York  Battery  aforesaid  who  was  most  earnest  and  active 
in  opposing  General  McDowell's  request  and  insisting  on  an 
immediate  discharge,  was  at  the  next  election,  in  full  view 
of  all  the  facts,  chosen  sheriff  of  the  city  of  New  York — 
probably  the  most  lucrative  office  filled  by  popular  election  in 

*In  the  debate  in  the  House  of  the  20th  February,  1901,  when  Mr.  Lentz 
of  Ohio,  said  that  if  soldiers  in  the  Philippines  are  ordered  to  kill  prisoners, 
they  are  justified  in  deserting,  Mr.  Cannon,  of  Illinois, 'said  that  in  his 
lifetime  he  had  heard  more  eloquent  men  than  the  gentleman  from  Ohio 
encourage  desertion.  "When  the  life  of  the  nation  was  at  stake,"  said  he, 
"  men  all  over  the  North  stood  behind  the  firing  line  and  encouraged  deser- 
tion. *  *  *  *  During  the  Civil  War  I  thought  if  8,000  or  10,000  of  the 
copperheads  had  been  shot  we  would  not  have  been  troubled  with  deser- 
tion."— Baltimore  Sun  of  21st  February,  1901. 


38  The  Real  Lincoln. 


the  country."  Russell  gives  the  reason  why  General  Patterson 
did  not  bring  his  army  from  the  upper  Potomac  to  help  General 
McDowell  at  Bull  Run,  that*  "  out  of  twenty-three  regiments 
composing  his  force,  nineteen  refused  to  stay  an  hour  after 
their  time."  Can  any  explanation  be  suggested  but  that  these 
soldiers  and  their  friends  at  home  reprobated  the  task  to 
which  they  were  ordered? 

•  McClure's  Lincoln  says  (page  56) :  "  When  he  (Lincoln) 
turned  to  the  military  arm  of  the  government,  he  was  appalled 
by  the  treachery  of  the  men  to  whom  the  nation  should  look 
fort  its  preservation."  Scarcely  any  were  so  devoted  to  the 
flag;  none  knew  so  well  the  seriousness  of  the  step  as  the 
officers  of  the  regular  army,  but,  notwithstanding,  three  hun- 
dred and  thirteen  (nearly  one-third)  resigned.  General  Keifer 
says  that  about  March,  1861,  "  disloyalty  among  prominent 
army  officers  was  for  a  while  the  rule."  General  Scott,  com- 
mander of  the  army,  recommended  "  that  the  erring  sisters  be 
allowed  to  depart  in  peace."  Much  pity  has  been  spent  on 
Major  Anderson,  cut  off  from  supplies  and  bombarded  in  Fort 
Sumter,  but  one  of  Lincoln's  eulogists  has  to  rejoice  now  that 
he  was  spared  the  pain  of  reading  the  reproaches  contained  in 
a  letter  written  him  by  Major-  Anderson,  censuring  him  for 
proposing  to  use  force.  The  letter  miscarried.  We  have  other 
letters  of  Major  Anderson's,  showing  that  he,  like  Scott  and 
Seward,  and  the  rest,  thought  coercion  out  of  the  question. 

Nicolay  and  Hay  say  the  Union  army  showed  the  strongest 
sympathy  with  its  always  immensely  popular  general,  McClel- 
lan,  in  his  bold  protests  against  emancipation,  and  that  there 
was  actual  danger  of  revolt  in  the  army  against  the  emancipa- 
tion proclamation  when  General  Burnside  turned  over  the 
command  of  his  army  of  one  hundred  and  twenty  thousand 
men  to  General  Hooker  in  Virginia.  |  In  Warden's  Life  of  Chase 
(page  485  et  seq.)  a  letter  of  September,  1862,  from  Chase  to 
John  Sherman,  says :  "  I  hear  from  all  sources  that  nearly  all 
the  officers  in  Buel's  army,  and  that  Buel  himself,  are  pro- 
slavery  in  the  last  degree." 

*My  Diary,  North  and  South  (p.  179).  Channing's  Short  History  of  the 
United  States  (p.  308  et  seg.) 

t  Keifer's  Slavery  and  Four  Years  of  War  (p.  171) ;  Nicolay  and  Hay's  Lincoln 
(Vol.  I.,  p.  185). 


Proclamation  of  Emancipation.  39 

Grant,  in  his  Memoir  (Vol.  II.,  page  323),  says  that  during 
August,  1864,  "  right  in  the  midst  of  these  embarrassments, 
Halleck  informed  me  that  there  was  an  organized  scheme  on 
foot  to  resist  the  draft,  and  suggested  that  it  might  become 
necessary  to  withdraw  troops  from  the  field  to  put  it  down." 
Nicolay  and  Hay  (Vol.  VI.,  page  3)  tell  of  violent  resistance  to 
the  draft  in  Pennsylvania. 

How  did  the  North  and  the  West  Receive  the  Proclama- 
tion of  Emancipation  ? 

Nicolay  and  Hay's  Lincoln  (Vol.  II.,  page  261)  records  great 
losses  in  the  elections  in  consequence  of  the  proclamation,  as 
do  Schouler  and  Holland  (page  457).  Butler's  Book  (page  536) 
quotes  Seward's  reports  in  letters  to  his  wife,  that  "  the  results 
were  deplorable,"  and  that  "  the  returns  were  ominous  ";  that 
in  all  but  strong  Republican  States  "  the  opposition  was 
triumphant  and  the  administration  party  defeated."  Ida  Tar- 
bell,  in  HcClure's  Magazine  for  January,  1899  (page  165),  says: 
"  Many  and  many  a  man  deserted  in  the  winter  of  1862-1863 
because  of  the  emancipation  proclamation.  He  did  not  believe 
the  President  had  the  right  to  issue  it,  and  he  refused  to  fight. 
Lincoln  knew,  too,  that  the  Copperhead  agitation  had  reached 
the  army,  and  that  hundreds  of  them  were  being  urged  by 
parents  and  friends  hostile  to  the  administration  to  desert." 
Page  162  shows  that  Lincoln  himself  "comprehended  the  failure 
to  respond  to  the  emancipation  or  to  support  the  war";  that 
(page  163)  "  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois 
and  Wisconsin  reversed  their  vote,  and  the  House  showed  great 
Democratic  gains."  McClure's  Lincoln,  &c.  (page  112  et  seq.) 
says:  "  There  was  no  period  from  January,  1864,  until  the  3d 
of  September,  when  McClellan  would  not  have  defeated  Lincoln 
for  President." 

Charles  A.  Dana,  in  his  Recollections  of  the  Civil  War  (page 
180  rt  seq.)  says:  "  The  people  of  the  North  might  themselves' 
have  become  half  rebels  if  this  proclamation  had  been  issued 
too  soon,"  and  that  "  two  years  before,  perhaps,  the  conse- 
quences of  it  might  have  been  our  entire  defeat."  How  per- 
sistent the  opposition  continued  to  be  may  be  judged  con- 


40  The  Real  Lincoln. 


clusively  by  the  fact  that  Lincoln's  emancipation  proclamation 
failed,  as  late  as  June,  1864,  to  get  the  two-thirds  vote  neces- 
sary to  fix  it  in  the  Constitution,  and  had  to  go  over  to  the 
next  session,  when  the  war  was  practically  ended. 

But  the  crowning  proof  of  the  attitude  of  a  very  large  part 
of  the  people  of  the  North  and  the  West  is  the  platform  and 
the  nominee  adopted  by  the  Democratic  party  for  the  presi- 
dential election  of  1864,  near  the  end  of  the  war.  It  advocated 
the  abandonment  of  the  war,*and  the  nominee  was  McClellan, 
an  avowed  opponent  of  emancipation.  Such  was  the  issue 
adopted  on  which  to  appeal  to  the  North  and  the  West,  and  the 
framers  of  it  were  called  by  Lincoln's  Secretary  of  the  Navyf 
some  of  the  most  astute  and  experienced  statesmen  of  their 
day.  Nor  was  the  appeal  a  failure,  as  has  been  so  widely 
heralded.  It  is  Ida  Tarbell,  Nicolay  and  Hay,  Butler,  Schouler, 
Holland,  McClure,  Lincoln  himself,  who  have  recorded  that 
three  months  after  his  renomination  they  all  despaired  of  his 
re-election. 

The  Method  by  which  "  Disloyalty  n  was  Suppressed* 

The  testimony  above  submitted  seems  ample  to  show  that 
a  vast  part  of  the  North  and  the  West  was  "  disloyal  "  to  the 
war  and  to  emancipation.  Let  us  next  consider  the  methods 
by  which  this  "  disloyalty  "  was  suppressed. 

How  fully  Lincoln  used  every  method  of  a  military  despot 
is  best  shown  by  an  examination  of  a  single  chapter  of  a  book 
just  from  the  press — Bancroft's  Life  of  William  H.  Reward.  The 
following  extracts  from  it  need  little  comment.  Lest  any  reader 
should  suppose  that  the  author  of  that  book  means  to  expose 
or  arraign  Lincoln  or  his  agent  Seward  for  the  arbitrary  arrests 
and  imprisonments  that  he  describes,  be  it  understood  that 
Bancroft  does  no  more  than  mildly  concede  that  Seward's 
zeal  in  a  good  cause  betrayed  him  into  undue  severities  in  the 
"loyal"  States.  He  says  expressly  (Vol.  II.,  page  276):  "For 
the  general  policy  as  practiced  in  the  Border  States,  there  is 

*  McClure's  Lincoln  (p.  126  et  seg.) 

f  Welles'  Paper,  The  Opposition  to  Lincoln  in  186k,  In  the  The  Atlantic  Monthly 
(Vol.  XVI.,  dated  1878). 


Method  by  Which  il Disloyalty"  Was  Suppressed.       41 

no  *  *  *  occasion  to  apologize  *  *  *  But  there  were 
some  serious  abuses  of  this  arbitrary  power  in  the  far  Northern. 
States."  Of  Seward  as  Lincoln's  Secretary  of  State  he  says 
(Vol.  II.,  page  264) :  "  Probably  the  detection  of  political  of- 
fenders and  the  control  of  political  prisoners  were  the  most 
distracting  of  all  his  career."  After  the  suspension  of  the 
writ  of  Habeas  Corpus,  "  the  Baltimore  marshal  of  police,  the 
police  commissioners  and  other  men  of  prominence  were  seized 
and  sent  to  a  United  States  fort.  Several  members  of  the 
Legislature  that  were  expecting  to  push  through  an  ordinance 
of  secession  the  next  day  were  arrested  in  September,  1861, 
and  treated  like  other  political  prisoners." 

Seward's  system  of  arrest  and  confinement  of  the  prisoners 
is  described  as  follows  (Vol.  II.,  page  259) :  "  Some  of  the  fea- 
tures bore  a  striking  resemblance  to  the  most  odious  institu- 
tions of  the  ancient  regime  in  France — the  Bastile  and  the 
Lcttres  de  Cachet." 

"  The  person  'suspected'  of  disloyalty  (Vol.  II.,  page  261) 
was  often  seized  at  night,  borne  off  to  the  nearest  fort,  deprived 
of  his  valuables,  locked  up  in  a  casemate  *  *  *  generally 
crowded  with  men  who  had  similar  experiences  *  *  *  If 
he  wished  to  send  for  friends  or  an  attorney,  he  was  informed 
that  the  rules  forbade  visitors,  that  attorneys  were  entirely 
excluded,  and  that  the  prisoner  who  sought  their  aid  would 
greatly  prejudice  his  case.  An  appeal  to  Seward  was  the  only 
recourse — a  second,  third  and  fourth,  all  alike  useless.  The 
Secretary  was  calm  in  the  belief  that  the  man  was  a  plotter  and 
would  do  no  harm  while  he  remained  in  custody."  It  was 
found  best  (Vol.  II.,  page  262)  "  to  take  prominent  men  far 
from  their  homes  and  sympathizers  *  *  *  The  suspected 
men,  notably  Marylanders,  were  carried  to  Fort  Warren  or 
other  remote  places  *  *  *  In  most  cases  from  one  to  three 
months  elapsed  before  definite  action  was  taken  by  the  depart- 
ment *  *  *  if  the  arrest  had  been  made  without  due  cause, 
no  oaths  or  conditions  of  release  were  required."  *  *  *  So, 
too,  "  if  the  alleged  offence  had  been  too  highly  colored  by  a 
revengeful  enemy."  See  particulars  of  several  cases  (Vol.  II., 
pages  264  to  276),  and  especially  one  in  which  ex-President 
Pierce,  "  who  believed  the  South  to  be  the  aggrieved  party," 


42  The  Real  Lincoln. 


was  aimed  at.  "  Not  one  of  the  political  prisoners  (Vol.  II., 
page  276)  was  brought  to  trial.  As  a  rule,  they  were  not  even 
told  why  they  were  arrested.  When  the  pressure  for  judicial 
procedure  or  for  a  candid  discussion  of  the  case  became  too 
strong  to  be  resisted  on  plausible  grounds,  the  alleged  offender 
was  released." 

Of  the  well  known  story  that  Seward  boasted  to  Lord  Lyons 
that  with  his  little  bell  he  could  imprison  any  citizen  in  any 
State,  and  that  no  one  but  the  President  could  release  him, 
Bancroft  says  (Vol.  II.,  page  280) :  "  If  he  made  this  remark, 
it  is  of  no  special  importance;  it  was  a  fact  that  he  was  almost 
as  free  from  restraint  as  a  dictator  or  a  sultan." 

Holland's  Lincoln  shows  (page  476  et  seq.~)  that  when  Lincoln 
killed,  by  "  pocketing  "  it,  a  bill  for  the  reconstruction  of  the 
Union  which  Congress  had  just  passed,  Ben  Wade  and  Winter 
Davis,  aided  by  Greeley,  published  in  Greeley's  Tribune  of 
August  5th  "a  bitter  manifesto."  .It  charged  that  the  President, 
by  preventing  this  bill  from  becoming  a  law  "  holds  the  elec- 
toral vote  of  the  rebel  States  at  the  discretion  of  his  personal 
ambition,"  and  that  "  a  more  studied  outrage  on  the  authority 
of  the  people  has  never  been  perpetrated."  McClure's  Lincoln 
gives  the  same  account.  See,  too,  Schouler's  History  of  the 
United  States  (page  469). 

Usher  describes  in  Reminiscences  of  Lincoln  (page  92  et  seq.) 
how  pretended  Representatives  from  Virginia  (besides  those 
from  West  Virginia)  and  from  Louisiana  were  seated  in  Con- 
gress. Schouler  says  that  an  address  to  the  people  by  the 
opposition  in  Congress  accused  Lincoln  of  the  creation  already 
in  August,  1864,  of  bogus*  States.  Gorham's  Stanton  (Vol.  I., 

*  The  word ''bogus  "  is  borrowed  from  Brownsori's  Review,  which  said,  in 
October,  1864,  of  the  bill  which  Wade  and  Davis  denounced  Lincoln  for 
"  pocketing,"  as  follows :  "He  suffered  the  Bill  to  fail,  there  is  no  doubt, 
because  it  deprived  him  of  the  power  to  create  rotten  boroughs  or  Bogus 
States,  to  secure  his  re-election."  The  Review  reminds  its  readers  of  its  own 
stout  support  of  the  war  and  of  emancipation,  and  charges  that  Lincoln  is 
true  to  neither  but  has  had  from  the  first  no  aim  but  to  strengthen  himself 
and  secure  his  re-election.  Morse  describes  in  a  very  interesting  way 
(Vol.  II.,  p.  297)  how  Lincoln  kept  open  the  question  whether  the  votes  of 
his  reconstructed'  States  of  Arkansas  and  Tennessee  should  be  counted  for 
him  until  "  the  very  day  of  the  count,"  when  the  result  was  beyond  doubt, 
but  concedes  that  West  Virginia  was  counted,  with  no  better  right  than 
they.  Nicolay  and  Hay  (Vol.  IX.,  p.  436  et  seg.)  describe  apologetically  how 
Virginia  was  made  to  figure  in  Washington  as  two  "loyal  "  States. 


Lincoln's  Second  Election.  43 


page  177)  shows  how  indispensable  such  fictitious  States  were 
for  the  changes  that  were  made  in  the  Constitution,  in  the 
words,  "  no  changes  could  be  made  without  the  assent  of  three- 
fourths  of  the  States,  and  fifteen  of  the  thirty-one  States  were 
slave  States." 

Nicolay's  Outbreak  of  the  Rebellion,  (page  475)  says:  "  The 
evident  desire  of  the  people  for  peace  was  a  subject  of  deep 
solicitude  to  the  Administration."  Morse  (Vol.  II.,  page  274) 
shows  the  general  despair  of  electing  Lincoln  in  a  letter  to 
Lincoln  of  Raymond,  chairman  of  the  Republican  National 
Executive  Committee,  August  22,  1864,  which  says:  "  I  hear 
but  one  report — the  tide  is  setting  against  us,"  speaking  him- 
self for  New  York  and  quoting  Cameron  for  Pennsylvania, 
Washburne  for  Illinois  and  Morton  for  Indiana,  "  and  so  for 
the  rest." 

Nicolay  and  Hay's  Lincoln  (Vol.  IX.,  page  249)  says  that 
*  *  *  by  August,  1864,  Weed,  Raymond,  every  one,  including 
Lincoln,  despaired  of  his  re-election.  McClure's  Our  Presidents 
says  (page  183) :  "  But  in  fact  three  months  after  his  renomi- 
nation  in  Baltimore  his  defeat  by  General  McClelllan  was 
generally  apprehended  by  his  friends  and  frankly  conceded 
by  Lincoln  himself."  Several  of  his  biographers  give  copies  of 
a  memorandum  sealed  up  by  Lincoln  and  committed  to  one  of 
his  Cabinet  for  safekeeping,  in  which  is  recorded  his  convic- 
tion that  McClellan's  election  over  him  was  certain,  with  a, 
statement  of  his  purposes  how  to  act  during  the  interval  before 
McClellan  would  take  the  presidency.  It  is  referred  to  by  Welles 
in  his  papers  in  the  Atlantic  Monthly  under  the  heading,  "  Oppo- 
sition to  Lincoln  in  1864  "  (pages  266  and  366  et  seq.)  as  "  Lin- 
coln's despondent  note  of  August  23,  1864."  McClure,  too, 
refers  to  it  in  his  Our  Presidents  (page  183  et  scq.)  See,  also, 
Roosevelt's  Cmmcell  (page  208). 

Lincoln's  Second  Election  and  His  Majority* 

It  was  under  the  conditions  above  described  that  Lincoln's 
second  election  came  on.  The  management  of  it  was  committed 
in  large  measure  to  the  State  Department,  whose  workings 
have  been  shown  above,  and  to  the  War  Department.  The 


44  The  Real  Lincoln. 


canvass  for  the  presidency  by  Democrats  was  difficult,  for  an 
order  of  the  War  Department  had  made  criticism  of  the 
administration  treason,  triable  by  court-martial.  Soldiers 
ruled  -at  the  polls.  General  B.  P.  Butler*  gives  full  particulars 
of  the  large  force  with  which  he  occupied  New  York  city,  and 
shows  how  completely  he  controlled  its  vote  and  its  opposition 
to  the  war  that  had  lately  been  demonstrated  in  its  great  anti- 
draft  riot.  McCluref  shows  how  the  army  vote  was  found 
necessary  and  secured.  Chauncey  M.  DepewJ  describes  how 
the  soldiers'  vote  was  polled  *  *  *  "  made  out  by  [the 
soldier]  himself,  certified  by  the  commanding  officer  of  his 
company  or  regiment,  and  sent  to  some  friend  at  his  last 
voting  place  to  be  deposited  on  election  day."  Scores  of 
thousands  of  soldiers  were  furloughed  to  go  home  to  vote.  \ 
McClure  describes  how  Lincoln  was  afraid  to  ask  Grant  to  do 
him  this  service,  but  found  Sheridan  and  other  generals  ready. 
Depew  says  that  without  the  soldier  vote  so  managed,  Lincoln 
would  have  failed  to  get  the  electoral  vote  of  New  York.|| 

Lincoln's  re-election  by  an  exceedingly  large  majority  has 
been  triumphantly  alleged  and  is  adduced  as  proof  that  what 
he  had  done  and  was  doing  had  the  approval  of  the  North  and 
the  West.  That  the  vote  of  the  electoral  college  should  be 
recorded  for  Lincoln  was  quite  inevitable  in  view  of  what  the 
witnesses  quoted  in  this  sketch  have  recorded  of  the  political 
and  military  management  of  affairs,  at  election-time  and  long 
before,  in  the  Border  States,  in  Indiana,  Illinois,  Ohio,  and 
New  York;  in  great  cities  like  Chicago,  New  York  and  Boston, 
and  in  the  country  at  large,  as  far  as  Seward's  "  little  bell  " 
could  reach.  But  with  all  the  odds  against  McClellan  that  have 
been  shown  the  actual  number  of  votes  gotten  by  McClellan  was 
more  than  eighty-one  per  cent,  of  the  actual  number  of  votes 
gotten  by  Lincoln.  The  figures  by  which  this  percentage  is 

*  Butler's  Book  (pp.  752  to  773),  and  Rhodes'  History  of  the  United  States  (Vol. 
IV.,p,330). 

t  Our  Presidents,  etc.  (p.  195  et  seq.). 

I  Reminiscences  of  Lincoln  (p.  22  et  seq.) 

$  McClure's  Lincoln  (p.  186  et  seg,)t  and  Whitney's  On  Circuit  with  Lincoln, 
(p.  445). 

||  Reminiscences  of  Lincoln  (p.  430). 


Conclusions.  45 


ascertained  were  furnished  in  answer  to  a  late  application  to 
the  Peabody  Library  of  Baltimore. 

Conclusions* 

This  sketch  makes  no  formulation  of  the  conclusions  as  to 
Lincoln's  character  and  conduct  that  might  seem  to  be  de- 
ducible  from  the  evidence,  except  so  far  as  some  of  the  testi- 
mony above  given  formulates  them,  but  some  further  formu- 
lations by  the  same  witnesses  will  now  be  submitted. 

The  Emancipation  Proclamation  has  been  described  in  song 
and  story,  on  canvas  and  in  marble,  as  a  joyous  and  exultant 
announcement  of  freedom  to  the  slaves.  See  how  differently 
Ida  Tarbell  describes  it  and  its  author,  and  she  is  almost  a 
worshipper  of  Lincoln.  She  says:  "At  last  (page  525  et  seq.) 
the  Emancipation  Proclamation  was  a  fact,  but  there  was  little 
rejoicing  in  his  heart,  *  *  *  no  exultation;  *  *  *  indeed 
there  was  almost  a  groan  in  the  words  in  which,  the  night  after 
he  had  given  it  out,  he  addressed  a  party  of  serenaders  "  *  * 
And  she  records  that  Lincoln  himself  said  a  few  months  later: 
"  Hope  and  fear  contended  over  the  new  policy  in  uncertain 
conflict."  And  she  goes  on:  "As  he  had  foreseen,  dark  days 
followed.  There  were  mutinies  in  the  army  *  *  *  the 
events  of  the  fall  brought  him  little  encouragement.  Indeed 
the  promise  of  emancipation  seemed  to  effect  nothing  but  dis- 
appointment and  uneasiness;  stocks  went  down;  troops  fell 
off.  In  five  great  States — Indiana,  Illinois,  Ohio  Pennsylvania 
and  New  York — the  elections  went  against  him." 

Rhodes'  History  of  the  United  States  is  one  of  the  latest 
records  in  this  matter.  While  he  eulogizes  Lincoln  as  ardently 
as  any,  he  speaks  (Vol.  IV.,  page  234  et  seq.)  of  "  the  enormity 
of  the  acts  done  under  his  authority,"  and  says  "  he  stands 
responsible  for  the  casting  into  prison  of  citizens  of  the  United 
States  to  be  counted  by  thousands  (page  230)  on  orders  as 
arbitrary  as  the  Lettres  de  Cachet  of  Louis  XIV.,"  when  the 
mode  of  procedure  might  have  been,  "  as  in  Great  Britain  in 
her  crisis  (between  1793  and  1802),  on  legal  warrants,"  and  he 
pronounces  (page  234)  this  extra-judicial  procedure  inex- 
pedient, unnecessary  and  wrong.  See,  also,  Schouler's  History 


46  The  Real  Lincoln. 


of  the  United  States  (page  465).  Rhodes'  History  of  the  United 
States  gives  unqualified  commendation  to  the  patriotic  spirit . 
and  proper  jealousy  for  his  country's  liberty  that  prompted 
Seymour's  opposition  to  the  President,  and  shows  how  very 
far  it  went.  See  pages  169  to  172  for  proofs  of  Seymour's 
resentment  toward  Lincoln  and  for  Rhodes'  justification  of  it. 
Page  171  et  seq.  calls  Lincoln  a  tyrant.  Two  letters  of  Governor 
Morton  of  Indiana  (Vol.  IV.,  page  223  et  seq.)  and  much  other 
testimony  show  that  Indiana  was  kept  from  acknowledging 
the  Southern  Confederacy  only  by  force  from  Washington,  and 
that  Illinois  was  at  the  same  time  in  nearly  the  same  attitude. 

William  A.  Denning,  president  of  Columbia  University,  says 
in  his  Essays  on  the  Civil  War,  dated  1898  (page  39  et  seq.),  that 
President  Lincoln's  proclamation  of  September  24,  1862,  was  "  a 
perfect  plat  for  a  military  despotism,"  and  that  "  the  very 
demonstrative  resistance  of  the  people  to  the  government  only 
made  the  military  arrests  more  frequent,"  *  *  *  that  (page 
24  et  seq.)  "  Mr.  Lincoln  asserted  the  existence  of  martial  law 
*  *  *  throughout  the  United  States."  He  says  "  thousands 
were  so  dealt  with  *  *  *  and  that  (page  46)  "  the  records 
of  the  War  Department  contain  the  reports  of  hundreds  of 
trials  by  military  commissions  with  punishments  varying  from 
light  fines  to  banishment  and  death."  Lalor's  Encyclopedia 
says  the  records  of  the  Provost  Marshal's  office  in  Washington 
show  thirty-eight  thousand  political  prisoners,  but  Rhodes 
(Vol.  IV.,  page  230  et  seq.)  says  the  number  is  exaggerated. 

The  ceremony  of  signing  the  proclamation  is  elaborately 
described  by  Holland,*  and  all  his  ardent  admiration  cannot 
hide  the  President's  unseemly  behavior.  Schoulerf  records 
Secretary  Stanton's  "  disgust,"  and  Hapgood  says  Lincoln 
signed  "  with  some  half-jocose  remarks." 

Stanwood's  History  of  the  Presidency  concedes  (page  299 
et  seq.)  Lincoln's  usurpations  (that  he  may  defend  and  justify 
them),  by  showing  the  vast  opposition  to  him  in  the  Northern 
States,  and  from  many  men  whom  Stanwood  acknowledges  to 
have  been  "  loyal  "  in  purpose.  Holland's  Lincoln  says  (page 

*  See  Holland's  Lincoln  (p.  329  et  seg.,  and  392  et  seg.) 

f  Schouler's  History  of  the  United  States  (Vol.  VI.,  p.  631) ;  Hapgood's  Lincoln 
(p.  291  et  seg.) 


Conclusions.  47 


291):  "All  these  labors  Lincoln  was  performing  with  the 
knowledge  *  *  *  that  seven  States  were  in  open  revolt, 
and  that  a  majority  throughout  the  Union  had  not  the  slightest 
sympathy  with  him."  Rhodes,  in  his  History  of  the  United  States 
(pages  407  to  423)  records  the  force  put  by  Lincoln  on  the 
unwilling  people  of  the  Northern  States  to  go  on  with  the  war, 
and  gives  yet  more  abundant  proof  of  their  wish  to  stop  it. 

McClure's  Lincoln  (page  292  et  seq.)  says:  "  Nor  was  Greeley 
alone  in  these  views.  Not  only  the  entire  Democratic  party, 
with  few  exceptions,  but  a  very  large  proportion  of  the  Repub- 
lican party,  including  some  of  its  ablest  and  most  trusted 
leaders,  believed  that  peaceable  secession  might  reasonably 
result  in  early  reconstruction." 

Would  Jefferson  Davis,  would  Robert  Lee  have  asked  more 
than  McClure  here  says  the  two  great  parties  of  the  North  and 
West  agreed  in  believing  ought  to  be  done? 

Godkin,  of  the  Nation,  said  as  follows  in  one  of  his  recent 
editorials:  "  The  first  real  breach  in  the  Constitution  was  made 
by  the  invention  of  the  war  power  to  enable  President  Lincoln 
to  abolish  slavery.  No  one  would  now  say  that  this  was  not 
at  that  time  necessary,  but  it  made  it  possible  for  any  Presi- 
dent practically  to  suspend  the  Constitution  by  getting  up  a 
war  anywhere."  *  *  * 

Ida  Tarbell,  in  describing  the  opposition  to  Lincoln,  just 
after  his  nomination,  in  1864,  shows  as'  follows  the  feeling  of 
the  people  for  him:*  "The  awful  brutality  of  the  war  came 
upon  the  country  as  never  before.  There  was  a  revulsion  of 
feeling  against  the  sacrifice  going  on  such  as  had  not  been 
experienced  since  the  war  began.  All  the  complaints  that 
had  been  urged  against  Lincoln  *  *  *  broke  out  afresh; 
the  draft  was  talked  of  as  if  it  were  the  arbitrary  freak  of  a 
tyrant.  It  was  declared  that  Lincoln  had  violated  constitu- 
tional rights,  personal  liberty,  the  liberty  of  the  press,  *  *  * 
that,  in  short,  he  had  been  guilty  of  all  the  abuses  of  a  military 
dictatorship.  Much  bitter  criticism  was  made  of  his  treatment 
of  peace  overtures;  it  was  declared  that  the  Confederates  were 
anxious  to  make  peace  and  had  taken  the  first  steps,  but  that 
Lincoln  was  so  blood  thirsty  that  he  was  unwilling  to  use  any 


*  Ida  Tarbell,  in  McClure's  Magazine  for  1899  (p.  276  et  seg.) 


48  The  Real  Lincoln. 

means  but  force,  *  *  *  the  despair  and  indignation  of  the 
country  in  this  dreadful  time  all  centered  upon  Lincoln  *  * 
the  Democrats  argued  that  the  war  and  all  its  woes  were  the 
result  of  his  tyrannical  and  unconstitutional  policy.  The  more 
violent  intimated  that  he  should  be  put  out  of  the  way." 

In  considering  further  what  his  eulogists  have  called  the 
apotheosis  of  Lincoln,  we  have  the  following  as  to  his  place 
in  men's  minds  before  his  death:  He  had  been  in  Congress, 
and  Morse  comments  on  the  small  achievements  that  "  saved 
him  from  being  among  the  nobodies  of  the  House."  Adams' 
Life  of  Charles  Francis  Adams  (page  181)  says:  "Seen  in  the 
light  of  subsequent  events,  it  is  assumed  that  Lincoln  in  1865 
was  also  the  Lincoln  of  1861.  Historically  speaking,  there  can 
be  no  greater  error.  The  President,  who  has  since  become  a 
species  of  legend,  was  in  March,  1861,  an  absolutely  unknown, 
and  by  no  means  promising,  political  quantity,"  *  *  * 
and  Adams  goes  on,  "  none  the  less  the  fact  remains  that  when 
he  first  entered  upon  his  high  functions,  President  Lincoln 
filled  with  dismay  those  brought  in  contact  with  him  *  *  * 
The  evidence  is  sufficient  and  conclusive,  that,  in  this  respect, 
he  impressed  others  as  he  impressed  Mr.  Adams  in  their  one 
characteristic  interview."  And  as  late  as  1873,  ex-Minister 
Adams'  Memorial  Address  to  the  Legislature  of  New  7ork  on  the 
occasion  of  Seward's  death,  described  (page  48  et  seq.)  Lincoln 
as  displaying  when  he  entered  on  his  duties  as  President, 
"  moral,  intellectual  and  executive  incompetency." 

The  Honorable  L.  E.  Crittenden  records,  in  order  to  express 
his  regret  for  it,  the  fact  that*  "the  men  whose  acquaintance 
with  Lincoln  was  intimate  enough  to  form  any  just  estimate 
of  his  character  *  *  *  did  not  more  fully  appreciate  his 
statesmanship  and  other  great  qualities  *  *  *  that  they 


*  But  it  was  late  in  his  public  career  that  McClure's  Lincoln  (p.  123)  says, 
"  Lincoln's  desire  for  a  renomination  was  the  one  thing  uppermost  in  his 
mind  during  the  third  year  of  his  administration,"  and  McClure's  Our 
Presidents  (p.  184),  says,  "A  more  anxious  candidate  I  have  never  seen" 
and.  after  an  interview,  "I  could  hardly  treat  with  respect  his  anxiety 
about  his  renomination.  Rhodes'  (Vol.  III.,  p.  868,  in  a  note)  records  that 
R.  Fuller,  a  prominent  Baptist  preacher,  wrote  Chase.  "  I  marked  the  Presi- 
dent closely.  *  *  *  He  is  wholly  inaccessible  to  Christian  appeals,  and 
his  egotism  will  ever  prevent  his  comprehending  what  patriotism  means." 


Condusioiis.  49 


did  not"  recognize  him  as  the  greatest  patriot,  statesman 
and  writer  of  his  time."  Rhodes  concedes  (Vol.  IV.,  page  520 
et  scq.)  that  "  his  contemporaries  failed  to  perceive  his  great- 
ness." General  Bonn  Piatt  presents  very  effectively  his  view 
of  how  the  change  of  the  American  world's  feeling  toward 
Lincoln,  and  of  its  estimate  of  him,  came  about.  In  Reminis- 
cences of  Lincoln  (page  21)  he  says:  "  Lincoln  was  believed  by 
contemporaries  secondary  in  point  of  talent "  and  "  Lincoln  as 
one  of  Fame's  immortals  does  not  appear  in  the  Lincoln  of  1861, 
whom  men  *  *  *  likened  to  'the  original  gorilla.'  "  He 
says*  in  his  Biography  of  General  Thomas  (preface,  page  16): 
"  Fictitious  heroes  have  been  embalmed  in  lies,  and  monuments 
are  being  reared  to  the  memories  of  men  whose  real  histories, 
when  they  come  to  be  known,  will  make  this  bronze  and 
marble  the  monuments  of  our  ignorance  and  folly."  And  in 
Reminiscences  of  Lincoln  he  says  (page  477):  "With  us,  when 
a  leader  dies,  all  good  men  go  to  lying  about  him,  and,  from 
the  monument  that  covers  his  remains  to  the  last  echo  of  the 
rural  press,  in  speeches,  sermons,  eulogies  and  reminiscences, 
we  have  naught  but  pious  lies."  *  *  *  "  Poor  Garfield 
*  *  *  *  was  almost  driven  to  suicide  by  abuse  while  he 
lived.  He  fell  by  the  hand  of  an  assassin,  and  passed  in  an 
instant  to  the  role  of  popular  saints.  *  *  Popular  beliefs, 
in  time,  come  to  be  superstitions  and  create  gods  and  devils. 
Thus  Washington  is  deified  into  an  impossible  man  and  Aaron 
Burr  has  passed  into  a  like  impossible  monster.  Through  this 
same  process,  Abraham  Lincoln,  one  of  our  truly  great,  has 
almost  gone  from  human  knowledge  (the  Reminiscences  are 
dated  1886).  I  hear  of  him  and  read  of  him  in  eulogies  and 
biographies,  and  fail  to  recognize  the  man  I  encountered  for 
the  first  time  in  the  canvass  that  called  him  from  private  life 
to  be  President  of  the  United  States."  Piatt  then  goes  on  to 
describe  a  conference  that  he  and  General  Schenck  had  with 
Lincoln  in  his  home  in  Springfield,  f  "I  soon  discovered  that 
this  strange  and  strangely-gifted  man,  while  not  at  all  cynical, 

*  Tributes  from  his  Associates  (p.  147).  Schouler's  Histonj  of  the  United  States, 
uses  without  quotation  marks  the  precise  words  of  Piatt  above  quoted  (Vol. 
VI.,  P.  -21). 

t  Reminiscences  of  Lincoln  (p.  480). 


50  The  Real  Lincoln. 


was  a  sceptic;  his  view  of  human  nature  was  low     *     *     *     he 
unconsciously  accepted  for  himself  and  his  party  the  same  low 
line  that  he  awarded  the  South.     Expressing  no  sympathy  for 
the  slave,  he  laughed    at    the    Abolitionists*  as  a  disturbing 
element  easily  controlled,  without  showing  any  dislike  to  the 
slave-holders.    We  were  not  (page  481)  at  a  loss  to  get  at  the 
fact  and  the  reason  for  it,  in  the  man  before  us.     Descended 
from  the  poor-whites  of  a  slave  State,  through  many  genera- 
tions, he  inherited,  the  contempt,  if  not  the  hatred,  held  by 
that  class  for  the  negroes.     A  self-made   man,     *     *     *     his 
strong  nature  was  built  on  what  he  inherited,  and  he  could  no 
more  feel  a  sympathy  for  that  wretched  race  than  he  could 
for  the  horse  he  worked  or  the  hog  he  killed,  t  In  this  he  ex- 
hibited the  marked  trait  that  governed  his  public  life.     *     *     * 
He  knew  and  saw  clearly  that  the  people  of  the  free  States 
not  only  had  no  sympathy  with  the  abolition  of  slavery,  but 
held  fanatics,  as  Abolitionists  were  called,  in  utter  abhorrence." 
Then  Piatt  candidly  repudiates  the  false  pretensions  that 
are  so  often  made  to  lofty,  benevolent  purpose  in  those  who 
"  conquered  the  rebellion,"  and  ends  as  follows:  "  We  are  quick 
to  forget  the  facts  and  slow  to  recognize  the  truths  that  knock 
from  [under]  us  our  pretentious  claims  to  high  philanthropy. 
As  I  have  said,  abolitionism  was  not  only  unpopular  when  the 
war  broke  out,  but  it  was  detested.     *     *     *     I  remember  when 
the  Hutchinsons  were  driven  from  the  camps  of  the  Potomac 
Army  by  the  soldiers,  for  singing  their  Abolition  songs,  and  I 
remember  well  that  for  nearly  two  years  of  our  service  as 
soldiers  we  were  engaged  in  returning  slaves  to  their  masters 
when  the  poor  creatures  sought  shelter  in  our  lines." 

*  Mrs.  Lincoln,  who  was  present,  said,  "The  country  will  find  how  we 
regard  that  abolition  sneak,  Seward."  Rhodes'  History  of  the  United  States 
says  (Vol.  II.,  p.  325),  "  Lincoln  was  not,  however,  in  any  sense  of  the  word, 
an  abolitionist." 

f  Herndon's  Lincoln  (Vol.  V.,p.  74  etseq.),  tells  a  story  of  Lincoln's  bar- 
barous cruelty  to  a  number  of  hogs  that  he  was  driving.  Hapgood's  Lin- 
coln (p.  25  et  seq)  gives  the  story,  without  defense  or  apology,  naming  the 
men  who  helped  him,  and  specifying  that  Lincoln  devised  it  and  aided  in 
it  with  his  own  hands. 


What  This  Sketch   Would  Teach.  51 


What  this  Sketch  Would  Teach* 

In  view  of  what  this  sketch  presents,  those  who  have 
learned  to  rate  Lincoln  highest  can  hardly  refuse  to  modify 
their  estimate  of  him,  and  it  was  with  the  purpose  to  effect 
such  a  change  in  men's  minds,  in  the  interest  of  truth,  that 
the  task  was  undertaken.  But  the  search  in  Northern  records 
has  taught  the  writer  another  truth,  and  a  more  important  one, 
that  he  was  far  from  seeking.  To  gain  the  ear  of  people 
of  Northern  prejudices  by  presenting  no  testimony  but  that  of 
Northern  witnesses  was  the  plan  adopted  in  seeking  materials 
for  this  sketch.  To  win  more  patient  hearing  from  people  of 
Southern  prejudices,  it  had  been  contemplated  to  put  on  the 
title  page  as  motto  Fas  est  a&  hoste  doc&ri.  But  the  search 
showed  that  the  North  and  the  West  were  never  enemies  of  the 
South;  that  those  who  disapproved,  deplored,  bitterly  censured 
secession,  for  the  most  part  disapproved  yet  more  coercion 
of  sister  States  and  emancipation  of  the  negroes,  while  a  vast 
part  thought  the  South  was  asking  what  she  had  a  right  to 
ask. 

So  it  is  to  forgetfulness  of  the  sad  quarrel — to  love,  not  to 
resentment  or  hate — that  the  lessons  of  this  sketch  would 
lead  its  readers.  Those  who  taught  that  there  was  "  an  irre- 
pressible conflict "  between  North  and  South  were  but  a  hand- 
ful of  fanatics — the  same  who  denounced  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  as  a  "  covenant  with  hell."  Is  it  not  shown 
above  that  it  would  have  been  nearer  the  truth  to  say  that 
the  North  and  the  South  were  essentially  of  one  accord  on 
the  two  questions,  whether  a  State  might,  at  least  as  a  revolu- 
tionary right,  withdraw  from  the  Union,  and  whether  the 
negroes  should  be  emancipated? 

Is  it  not  an  immense  gain  to  know  that  the  facts  were  as 
set  forth  above,  rather  than  go  on  believing  the  story  that  has 
spread  so  widely — that  one  side  carried  fire  and  sword  into 
the  homes  of  the  other  as  a  punishment  they  believed  the 
sufferer  well  deserved?  Can  those  who  suffered  the  great 
wrong  really  forgive  and  forget  while  events  are  so  recorded 
in  history? 


APPENDIX. 


ADAMS,  CHARLES  FRANCIS,  was  Minister  to  England 
during  Lincoln's  whole  administration.  He  was  of  the 
family  that  had  given  two  Presidents  to  the  United 
States,  and  his  father  and  his  grandfather  had  been 
Ministers  to  England  before  him. 

ANDREWS,  E.  BENJAMIN,  once  President  of  Brown  Univer- 
sity, is  still  prominent  in  educational  work.  He 
shows  in  his  History  of  the  United  States  (Vol.  II.,  pages 
64,  77,  81  et  seq.)  that  he  is  an  ardent  Abolitionist  and  an 
admirer  of  Lincoln. 

BUTLER,  GENERAL  B.  F.,  was  made  by  Lincoln  Major-Gen- 
eral and  one  of  General  Grant's  corps  commanders,  and 
was  Lincoln's  first  choice  for  Vice-President. 

BEECHER,  REV.  HENRY  WARD,  was  a  strong  Republican 
and  Abolitionist,  and  a  very  prominent  supporter  of  the 
war. 

BOUT  WELL,  GEORGE  S.,  was  in  Congress  from  Massachu- 
setts, aided  in  organizing  the  Republican  party  in  1854, 
and  in  procuring  Lincoln's  election,  and  was  made  by 
Lincoln  the  first  Commissioner  of  the  Internal  Revenue. 
(See  name  of  Rice.) 

BROOKS,  PHILLIPS,  Bishop  of  Massachusetts.  For  evidence 
of  his  partisanship  see  a  prayer  he  made  in  the  streets 
of  Philadelphia  on  the  downfall  of  the  Confederacy.  In 
the  large  page  and  a  half  there  is  not  a  reference  to  the 
miseries  of  the  defeated  nor  an  aspiration  for  the  amend- 
ment of  their  condition,  physical  or  spiritual.  See  his 
Life  and  Letters,  by  Allen,  Vol.  I.,  page  531. 

CHANDLER,  ZACHARIAH,  SENATOR,  was  one  of  the  or- 
ganizers of  the  Republican  party  in  1854. 

CHANNING,  EDWARD,  Professor  of  History  in  Harvard, 
shows  in  his  Short  History  of  tin'  I  nitnl  Xttitcs  (page  352) 
an  ardent  admiration  of  Lincoln. 


Appendix.  53 


CHASE,  SALMON  P.,  was  Lincoln's  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
till  made  by  him  Chief  Justice. 

CURTIS,  GEORGE  WILLIAM,  lately  editor  of  Harper's  Weekly, 
was  a  widely  known  scholar  and  author.  The  quotations 
show  how  he  stood  towards  the  war  and  Abolition. 

CRITTENDEN,  L.  E.,  was  Register  of  the  Treasury.  The 
words  quoted  show  his  attitude  toward  Lincoln. 

DANA,  CHARLES  A.,  was  long  managing  editor  of  the  New 
York  Tribune,  took  an  important  part  in  procuring  Lin- 
coln's election,  and  was  his  Assistant  Secretary  of  War. 

DANA,  RICHARD  H.,  was  a  distinguished  author  and  law- 
writer,  was  nominated  by  President  Grant  for  Minister  to 
England,  and  was  a  representative  of  the  best  culture  of 
Massachusetts. 

DAVIS,  HENRY  WINTER,  was,  though  a  Marylander,  an 
ardent  supporter  in  Congress  of  the  war  and  of  emanci- 
pation. 

DAVIS,  DAVID,  is  named  by  McClure  in  his  Lincoln  with 
Leonard'  Swett,  Ward  H.  Lamon  and  William  H.  Herndon 
as  one  of  the  four  men  "  closest  to  Lincoln  before  and 
after  his  election."  He  was  made  by  Lincoln  one  of  the 
Supreme  Court  Justices,  and  finally  executor  of  his  estate. 

DAWES,  HENRY  L.,  represented  Massachusetts  in  the  House 
for  nine  sessions,  beginning  in  1857;  succeeded  Sumner 
in  the  Senate,  and  continued  there  till  he  declined  re- 
election in  1893. 

DOUGLAS,  FREDERICK,  was  one  of  the  most  honored  and 
respected  colored  men  during  his  long  life,  with  every- 
thing to  prejudice  him  in  favor  of  Lincoln. 

DENNING,  WILLIAM  ARCHIBALD,  in  his  Essays  on  the  Civil 
War  and  Reconstruction,  pictures  with  merciless  exulta- 
tion (pages  247  to  252)  the  years  of  humiliation  and  tor- 
ture imposed  on  the  South  during  the  "  reconstruction." 

DUNNING,  E.  O.,  was  chaplain  in  the  Union  army.  His  words 
quoted  show  his  attitude. 

EVERETT,  EDWARD,  had  been  Minister  to  England,  and  was 
such  another  man  as  Richard  H.  Dana,  ranking  even 
higher. 

FOULKE,  WILLIAM  DUDLEY,  shows  in  his  words  quoted  his 
partisan  attitude. 


54  The  Real  Lincoln. 


FREMONT,  J.  C.,  ran  against  Buchanan  as  candidate  for  the 
Presidency.  As  Major-General  he  proclaimed  freedom 
to  the  negroes  in  his  command. 

FRENCH,  WILLIAM  M.,  showis  in  his  words  quoted  his  parti- 
san attitude. 

FISKE,  JOHN,  was  lately  shown  by  a  publication  of  Dr. 
Hunter  McGuire  to  be  a  prejudiced  partisan  of  North 
against  South. 

GILMORE,  JAMES  R.  Appleton's  Encyclopedia  says  that  a 
mission  to  Jefferson  Davis  made  by  Gilmore  had  the 
effect  of  assuring  the  re-election  of  Lincoln. 

GODKIN,  E.  L.,  was  long  and  till  lately  the  able  and  useful 
editor  of  the  Nation,  but  is  utterly  intolerant  as  to  all 
that  concerns  secession  and  slavery. 

GORHAM,  G.  C.,  author  of  a  late  life  of  Stan  ton,  which  shows 
his  partisan  attitude. 

GRANT,  U.  S.,  General  and  President,  is  obviously  the  most 
trustworthy  of  all  witnesses  in  the  matters  about  which 
he  is  quoted. 

GREELEY,  HORACE.  McClure,  in  his  Our  Presidents  ana  How 
We  Make  Them  (page  243)  calls  Greeley  "  one  of  noblest, 
purest  and  ablest  of  the  great  men  of  the  land,"  and  says 
in  his  Lincoln  (page  225  et  seq.):  "  Greeley  was  in  closer 
touch  with  the  active,  loyal  sense  of  the  people  than  even 
the  President  (Lincoln)  himself,"  and  that  "  Mr.  Gree- 
ley's  Tribune  was  the  most  widely  read  Republican 
journal  in  the  country,  and  it  was  unquestionably  the 
most  potent  in  modelling  Republican  sentiment.  It 
reached  the  intelligent  masses  of  the  people  in  every 
State  in  the  Union."  Gllmore's  Recollections  of  Lincoln 
has  a  letter  from  Lincoln  to  Robert  J.  Walker,  which 
says  of  Horace  Greeley:  "  He  is  a  great  power;  having 
him  firmly  behind  me  will  be  as  helpful  to  me  as  an  army 
of  an  hundred  thousand  men."  Channing's  Short  History 
of  the  United  States  calls  Greeley  "  one  of  the  ablest  men 
of  the  time." 

HAMLIN,  HANNIBAL,  was  Lincoln's  Vice-President. 

HAPGOOD,  NORMAN.  His  Abraham  Lincoln  is  the  latest 
biography,  published  in  1899.  It  shows  the  author's 


Appendix.  55 

attitude  of  admiration  in  the  first  page  of  the  preface, 
declaring  that  he  was  "  unequalled  since  Washington  in 
service  to  the  nation,"  and  quoting  the  verses — 
He  was  the  North,  the  South,  the  East,  the  West; 

The  thrall,  the  master,  all  of  us  in  one. 
See    under    names  of  Herndon   and  of   Lamon  his  en- 
dorsement of  their  ''  revelations." 

HAY,  JOHN,  now  Secretary  of  State,  came  from  Springfield 
with  Lincoln,  and  was  his  private  secretary,  as  Nicolay 
was,  to  his  death.  Their  joint  work,  Abraham  Lincoln, 
in  ten  large  volumes,  makes  the  most  favorable  presen- 
tation of  Lincoln  of  all  that  have  been  made. 

HERNDON,  WILLIAM  H.  His  Abraham  Lincoln,  dated  1888, 
sets  forth  on  the  title  page  that  Lincoln  was  for  twenty 
years  his  friend  and  law  partner,  and  says  in  the  preface 
(page  10):  "Mr.  Lincoln  was  my  warm,  devoted  friend; 
I  always  loved  him,  and  I  revere  his  name  to-day."  He 
quotes  with  approval  and  reaffirms  Lamon's  views  as  to 
the  duty  to  tell  the  faults  along  with  the  virtues,  and 
says  in  the  preface  (page  10):  "At  last  the  truth  will 
come  out,  and  no  man  need  hope  to  evade  it " ;  and  he 
betrays  his  sense  of  the  seriousness  of  the  faults  he  has 
to  record  by  calling  them  in  the  preface  (page  9) 
"  ghastly  exposures,"  and  by  saying  in  the  preface  (page 
8)  that  to  conceal  them  would  be  as  if  the  Bible  had  con- 
cealed the  facts  about  Uriah  in  telling  the  story  of  King 
David;  and  the  very  latest  biographer,  Hapgood,  writing 
with  all  the  light  yet  given  to  the  world,  says  in  his 
preface  (page  8) :  "  Herndon  has  told  the  President's 
early  life  with  a  refreshing  honesty  and  with  more  in- 
formation than  any  one  else."  Morse,  the  next  latest 
biographer,  also  commends  Herndon's  dealing  in  this 
matter.  See,  in  this  Appendix  under  Swett's  name  how 
Herndon's  extraordinarily  close  relations  with  Mr.  Lin- 
coln are  shown,  and  see  under  Lamon's  name  how  Hern- 
don's testimony  and  Lamon's  have  gone  uncontradicted. 

HOLLAND,  J.  G.,  was  a  popular  author,  and  was  long  editor 
of  Scribncr's  Magazine.  For  his  ardent  admiration  of 
Lincoln,  see  the  last  page  of  his  Abraham  Lincoln. 


56  The  Real  Lincoln. 


HUNTER,  DAVID,  was  made  Major-General  by  Lincoln,  and 
was  one  of  the  most  ardent  Abolitionists. 

KASSON,  JOHN  ADAMS,  was  a  conspicuous  Republican  in 
Congress,  honored  by  Lincoln  with  important  assign- 
ments at  home  and  abroad  in  the  Post-Office  Department. 

KEIFBR,  JOSEPH  WARREN,  was  member  of  Congress  from 
Ohio  and  Speaker  of  the  House,  and  wrote  Slavery  and 
Four  Tears  of  War,  which  book  shows  his  partisan 
attitude. 

LAMON,  WARD  H.;  published  his  Life  of  Lincoln  in  1872.  He 
appears  in  the  accounts  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  life  in  the  West 
as  constantly  associated  in  the  most  friendly  relations 
with  him.  He  accompanied  the  family  in  the  journey  to 
Washington,  and  was  selected  by  Lincoln  himself  (see 
McClure's  Lincoln,  page  46)  as  the  one  protector  to 
accompany  and  to  guard  him  from  the  assassination  that 
he  apprehended  so  causelessly  (see  Lamon's  Lincoln,  page 
513)  in  his  midnight  passage  through  Baltimore  to  his 
first  inauguration.  He  was  made  a  United  States  Mar- 
shal of  the  District  in  order  (McClure's  Lincoln,  page  67) 
that  Lincoln  might  have  him  always  at  hand.  Schouler, 
in  his  History  of  the  United  States  (page  614)  says  that 
Lamon  as  Marshal  "  made  himself  body-guard  to  the  man 
he  loved."  Though  Lamon  recognizes  and  sets  forth  with 
great  clearness  (page  181)  his  duty  to  tell  the  whole 
truth,  good  and  bad,  and  especially  (page  486  et  seq.) 
to  correct  the  statements  of  indiscreet  admirers  who 
have  tried  to  make  Lincoln  out  a  religious  man,  and, 
though  he  indignantly  remonstrates  against  such  stories 
as  making  his  hero  a  hypocrite,  the  book  shows  an  ex- 
ceedingly high  estimate  of  the  friend  of  his  lifetime. 
Both  Morse  and  Hapgood  commend  Lamon  and  Herndon 
for  their  "  revelations."  The  careful  search  in  many 
records  for  the  material  for  this  sketch  has  not  found 
a  single  attempt  to  deny  the  truth  of  Herndon's  testi- 
mony, or  of  Lamon's.  But  the  search  did  find  a  curious 
proof  of  the  strait  to  which  some  one  has  been  driven 
to  conceal  Lamon's  testimony.  In  the  Pratt  Library  in 
Baltimore,  Maryland,  is  a  book  with  a  title  as  follows: 


Appendix.  57 

"Recollections  of  Abraham  Lincoln,  1847-1865,  by  Ward  Hill 
Lamon,  edited  by  Dorothy  Lamon,  Chicago,  A.  E. 
McClurg  &  Co.,  1895."  Nowhere  in  this  book  of  several 
hundred  pages  is  found  an  intimation  of  the  iact  that  the 
same  Ward  Hill  Lamon  published  in  1872  the  Life  of 
Lincoln  quoted  frequently  in  this  sketch,  or  that  he  had 
published  any  book  about  Lincoln,  and  although  these 
"Recollect ions"  do  contain  the  avowal  that  appears  in  the 
Life  of  Lincoln,  that  Lamon  thinks  it  his  duty  to  conceal 
none  of  the  faults  of  his  hero,  every  word  ib  omitted  of 
the  "  revelations  "  and  "  ghastly  exposures  "  about  Lin- 
coln's attitude  towards  morals  and  religion  that  are  re- 
corded in  Lamon's  genuine  book.  Bancroft,  in  his  very 
lately  published  Life  of  Swcard,  quotes  (Vol.  II.,  page  42) 
Lamon  from  this  late  book,  making  no  reference  to  the 
genuine  book,  and  a  paper  in  the  Baltimore  Sun  of 
February  25,  1901,  does  the  same.  See  in  this  Appendix 
what  is  said  under  the  name  of  Herndon  and  Swett. 

LOGAN,  JOHN  A.,  Major-General.  His  book  about  the  war, 
The  Great  Conspiracy,  shows  throughout,  as  in  it&  title, 
his  partisan  attitude. 

McCLURE,  A.  K.  In  his  Lincoln  and  Men  of  the  War-Time, 
and  in  his  Our  Presidents  and  How  We  Make  Them,  the 
author's  intimate  association  with  Lincoln  is  shown  in 
many  places  (Lincoln,  page  112  et  seq.),  and  his  attitude 
towards  his  hero  may  be  measured  by  the  following 
tribute  (page  5  et  seq.):  "  He  has  written  the  most  illus- 
trious records  of  American  history,  and  his  name  and 
fame  must  be  immortal  while  liberty  shall  have  wor- 
shippers in  our  land." 

MORSE,  JOHN  T.,  published  in  1892  by  Houghton,  Mifflin  & 
Co.,  his  Lincoln,  one  of  the  American  Statesmen  Series. 
It  shows  throughout,  but  notably  in  the  last  four  pages, 
as  ardent  an  admiration  for  Lincoln  as  any  other  biogra- 
phy. It  concedes  (Vol.  I.,  page  192)  the  truth  of  the 
"  revelations  of  Messrs.  Herndon  and  Lamon  "  and  the 
duty  and  necessity  that  rested  on  them  to  record  these 
truths.  Morse  is  next  to  the  latest  of  the  biographers. 


58'  The  Real  Lincoln. 

NICOLA Y,  JOHN  G.  (like  John  Hay),  came  with  Lincoln  from 
Springfield,  and  was  his  private  secretary  to  the  end. 

PARIS,  THE  COUNT  OF,  was  a  volunteer  in  the  Union  army. 
See  Volume  IV.,  pages  2  to  7,  for  his  partisan  attitude. 

PIATT,  DONN,  GENERAL,  in  Reminiscences  of  Lincoln  (page 
449),  refers  to  Lincoln  as  "the  greatest  figure  looming 
up  in  our  history,"  and  as  one  "  who  wrought  out  for  us 
our  manhood  and  our  self  respect."  (See  name  of  Rice.) 

PHILLIPS,  WENDELL.  Appleton's  Encyclopedia  says  he 
"  began  as  Abolitionist  leader  in  1837  *  *  *  made  a 
funeral  oration  over  John  Brown  *  *  *  had  the 
Anti-Slavery  Standard  for  his  organ." 

POORE,  BEN  PERLEY,  was  a  distinguished  editor,  but  best 
known  as  Washington  correspondent;  was  major  in  the 
Eighth  Massachusetts  Volunteers.  His  book,  The  Con- 
spiracy Trial  for  the  Murder  of  Abraham  Lincoln,  shows 
his  partisan  attitude.  (See  name  of  Rice.) 

RICE,  ALLEN  THORNDIKE,  was  long  editor  of  the  North 
American  Review,  a  leading  Republican  organ.  As  editor 
of  Reminiscences  of  Lincoln  he  became  responsible,  more 
or  less,  for  what  is  quoted  in  it  from  Piatt,  Usher,  Bout- 
well,  Poore  and  Depew. 

RHODES,  JAMES  FORD,  is  author  of  a  six-volume  History  of 
the  United  States  that  (Vol.  IV.,  page  50)  eulogizes  Lin- 
coln ardently. 

ROPES,  JOHN  CODMAN,  author  of  the  Story  of  the  Civil  War. 
which  eulogizes  Lincoln. 

ROOSEVELT,  THEODORE,  now  Vice-President. 

RUSSELL,  WILLIAM  HOWARD.  His  "  My  Diary,  North  and 
South,"  published  in  the  London  Times,  shows  a  bitter 
aversion  to  slavery,  and  almost  everything  he  saw  in 
the  South,  and  he  shows  plainly  his  judgment  that  it  was 
the  right  and  duty  of  Lincoln  to  crush  secession.  George 
William  Curtis  says  in  his  "  Orations "  (Vol.  L,  page 
139)  about  Russell,  that  "  Europe  sent  her  ablest  corre- 
spondent to  describe  the  signs  of  the  times,  and  that 
Russell  saw  and  gave  a  fair  representation  of  the  public 
sentiment."  Adams'  Life  of  Adams  (page  151  et  seq.) 
speaks  of  Russell's  Diary  as  "  the  views  and  conclusions 


Appendix.  59 

of  an  unprejudiced  observer  through  the  medium  of  the 
most  influential  journal  in  the  world." 

SCHOULBR,  JAMES.  His  History  of  the  United  States  Cpage 
631  et  seq.)  shows  that  no  biographer  is  more  eulogistic 
of  Lincoln. 

SHERMAN,  JOHN,  President  McKinley's  first  Secretary  of 
State,  was  a  very  prominent  Republican  leader  during 
the  war,  and  served  in  the  Union  army  with  sword, 
tongue,  pen  and  purse,  raising  largely  at  his  own  expense 
a  brigade  known  as  Sherman's  Brigade. 

SEWARD,  WILLIAM  H.,  was  Secretary  of  State  during  Lin- 
coln's whole  administration,  and  accounted  one  of  his 
ablest  and  most  faithful  supporters. 

STEVENS,  THADDEUS,  entered  Congress  in  1858,  and  from 
that  time  until  his  death  was  one  of  the  Republican 
leaders,  and  the  chief  advocate  for  emancipating  and 
arming  the  negroes. 

SUMNER,  CHARLES,  was  long  Senator  from  Massachusetts, 

and  was  a  leader  in  support  of  the  war  and  emancipation. 

SWETT,  LEONARD.    See  his  very  close  relations  to  Lincoln, 

shown  under  the  name  of  David  Davis  in  this  Appendix. 

ST  ANTON,  EDWIN  M.,  was  often  called  Lincoln's  "  Great  War 

Secretary."    Appleton's  Encyclopedia  says:    "  None  ever 

questioned  his  honesty,  his  patriotism  or  his  capability." 

STANWOOD,  EDWARD.     His  History  of  the  Presidency  is  a 

recognized  authority,  with  no  Southern  leanings. 
TARBELL,  IDA,  shows  constantly  in  her  histories  the  most 

ardent  admiration  for  Lincoln. 

TRUMBULL,   LYMAN,   declined  to  oppose    Lincoln    for    the 
nomination  in  1860,  and  was  one  of  the  first  to  propose  in 
the  Senate  the  abolition  of  slavery. 
USHER,  J.  P.,  was  in  Lincoln's  Cabinet  as  Secretary  of  the 

Interior. 
WELLES,   EDGAR  THADDEUS,   was  Lincoln's  Secretary  of 

the  Navy. 

WINTHROP,  ROBERT  H.,  was  eminent  as  a  scholar  and 
statesman,  was  ten  years  in  the  House,  and  then  in  the 
Senate  from  Massachusetts. 


60  The  Real  Lincoln. 


WHITNEY,  HENRY  CLAY,  shows  his  exceedingly  high  esti- 
mate of  Lincoln  in  the  last  page  of  his  On  Circuit  with 
Lincoln. 

WADE,  BEN,  was  one  of  the  most  prominent  Republican 
leaders. 

WILSON,  WOODROW,  is  a  distinguished  and  popular  professor 
in  Princeton.  For  his  admiring  attitude  towards  Lincoln 
see  pages  216  and  217  of  his  Disunion  and  Reunion. 


LINCOLN. 


By  President  Tyler,  William  and  Mary  College,  Williams- 
burgf,  Va«,  Editor  William  and  Mary  College  Quarterly 
Historical  Magazine.* 


I  have  no  disposition  to  criticise  Mr.  Lincoln  harshly,  but  I 
think  the  Northern  people  make  a  great  mistake  in  trying  to 
make  a  moral  and  intellectual  hero  of  him.  In  doing  so 
they  provoke  criticism. 

I  propose  to  say  a  few  words  about  Mr.  Lincoln  in  his  aspect 
as  a  ruler.  Lincoln  began  the  war  in  1861  under  circumstances 
that  seem  to  put  his  character  for  honor  in  question.  To 
Governor  Morehead,  of  Kentucky,  he  expressed  his  intention 
of  withdrawing  the  troops  from  Port  Sumter  (Coleman's  Life  of 
CrittciHlrH).  Seward,  the  Secretary  of  State,  invited  Judge 
Campbell  to  a  conference,  and  with  full  knowledge  that  he 
(Campbell)  would  communicate  the  intelligence  to  the  Con- 
federate commissioners,  told  him  the  same  thing.  There  were 
three  of  these  conversations  in  March,  1861,  between  Campbell 
and  Seward,  and  at  each  Seward  was  fully  apprised  by  Camp- 
bell of  his  assurances  to  the  Confederate  commissioners.  On 
the  1st  of  April  Campbell  received  from  Seward  the  statement 
in  writing:  "  I  am  satisfied  the  government  will  not  undertake 
to  supply  Fort  Sumter  without  giving  notice  to  Governor 
Pickens."  There  was  a  departure  here  from  the  pledge  of  the 
previous  month,  but  as  Seward  accompanied  the  statement 
with  the  words  that  "  he  did  not  believe  any  such  attempt 
would  be  made,  and  that  there  was  no  design  to  reinforce  Fort 
Sumter,"  Judge  Campbell  did  not  complain.  On  the  7th  of 
April  Judge  Campbell  addressed  a  letter  to  Seward  on  the 
subject  of  the  rumors  of  the  warlike  preparations  of  the 
government,  and  asked  him  if  the  assurances  he  had  given 

*  Reproduced,  in  part,  from  Richmond  Dispatch,  February  11,  1900. 


62  The  Real  Lincoln. 


were  "  well  or  ill-founded."     la  respect  to   Sumter  Seward's 
reply  was:   "Faith  as  to  Sumter  fully  kept — wait  and  see." 

On  the  next  evening  notice  was  given  to  Governor  Pickens 
of  the  intention  to  supply  Fort  Sumter,  "  peaceably,  if  per- 
mitted; otherwise,  by  force";  and  on  the  following  day  a 
powerful  squadron,  with  men  and  arms  on  board,  sailed  from 
New  York  to  South  Carolina.  Lincoln's  message  to  the  Federal 
Congress  in  July,  1861,  referring  to  this  subject,  affords  curious 
reading.  He  admits  that,  in  a  military  point  of  view,  the 
duty  of  the  government  had  been  reduced  to  the  mere  matter 
of  getting  the  garrison  safely  out  of  the  fort;  and  yet,  from 
political  consideration,  it  was  deemed  necessary  to  hold  the 
fort.  Therefore,  Mr.  Lincoln  in  his  message  minimizes  the 
purposes  of  the  government,  and  makes  the  military  armament 
a  mere  errand  of  relief — "  to  give  bread  to  a  few  brave  and 
hungry  men  " — merely  to  enable  the  government  to  retain 
visible  possession  of  the  fort. 

Who  Began  the  War  ? 

Now,  if  this  was  all  that  was  intended,  why  were  not  the 
supplies  sent  by  an  unarmed  vessel,  incapable  of  making  an 
attack?  In  such  a  case,  the  peaceful  character  of  the  expedi- 
tion could  not  have  been  mistaken.  Firing  upon  an  unarmed 
vessel  might  have  been  retorted  by  Major  Anderson  in  Fort 
Sumter,  and  the  responsibility  of  the  first  shot  might  have 
been,  with  greater  show  of  reason,  laid  upon  the  Confederate 
Government;  but  an  armed  expedition  was  prepared  to  accom- 
pany the  supplies,  and  the  facts  justify  the  belief  that  it  was 
for  the  object  of  forcing  the  Confederates  to  fire.  Mr.  Lincoln 
knew  that  the  Confederate  Government  did  not  want  to  fire 
on  Fort  Sumter,  and  he  took  deliberate  measures  to  leave  no 
other  alternative  open  to  them;  and  yet  he  talks  in  his  message 
as  if  it  were  a  mere  matter  of  giving  "  bread  to  a  few  brave 
and  hungry  men."  Notice  was  given,  it  is  true,  that  the  only 
intention  of  the  expedition  was  to  supply  Fort  Sumter  with 
provisions,  but  in  the  same  breath  the  Confederates  were  in- 
formed that  arms  and  men  might  be  landed  after  further  notice. 

It  is  idle  for  Northern  writers  to  say  that  the  Lincoln  gov- 


Who  Began  the   War?  63 

erjiment  did  not  begin  the  war,  for,  as  the  great  constitutional 
writer,  Hallam,  has  well  said:  "The  aggressor  in  a  war — 
that  is,  he  who  begins  it — is  not  the  first  who  uses  force,  but 
the  first  who  renders  force  necessary."  "As  was  intended," 
says  Lincoln  in  the  same  mesage,  "  notice  was  given."  Now, 
why  this  intention,  unless  Lincoln  had  been  fully  informed 
by  Seward  of  his  conversations  with  Judge  Campbell?  For  all 
honorable  purposes  the  notice  might  as  well  have  not  been 
given.  The  fleet  was  prepared  before  any  notice  was  given, 
and  the  notice  that  Governor  Pickens  finally  received  was 
anticipated  by  the  newspapers.  Mr.  John  C.  Ropes  refers  to 
these  assurances  of  Mr.  Seward  as  "  semi-official  "  only.  For 
one,  I  fail  to  see  how  an  official  can  ever  become  '  a  semi- 
official," or  how  Mr.  Lincoln,  who  retained  Mr.  Seward  in 
office,  after  all  the  facts  were  known,  can  be  considered  in  any 
other  light  than  as  his  backer  and  indorser. 

In  fact,  Lincoln's  message,  to  which  reference  has  been 
made,  mirrors  his  character  exactly.  He  was  a  man  of  un- 
doubted mental  power,  but  the  workings  of  his  mind,  instead 
of  proceeding  upon  broad  planes  of  principle,  wound  in  and 
out  in  narrow  ways,  and  tortuous  lines,  and  his  conclusions 
have  much  the  effect  of  the  handiwork  of  a  necromancer,  which 
amuses,  but  never  convinces. 

His  Subtleties* 

The  subtleties  of  expression  to  which  he  resorts  in  his 
attempt  to  justify,  under  the  law,  his  unconstitutional  acts, 
while  carrying  on  the  war  against  the  South,  cannot  stand 
serious  examination  for  a  moment.  When  he  asks,  in  his  indi- 
rect way,  whether  the  President  is  not  justified  in  violating 
his  oath  in  respect  to  one  law,  "  if,  in  so  doing,  he  keeps  all  the 
laws  from  going  (unexecuted — by  others),  and  prevents  the 
government  from  going  to  pieces,"  he  invites  the  answer  that 
the  President  might  on  the  same  principle  violate  all  the 
laws,  if,  by  so  doing,  he  caii  keep  all  the  laws  from  going  un- 
executed (by  others),  and  the  government  from  going  to  pieces! 
When  he  says  that  "  if  one  State  may  secede,  so  may  another, 
and  when  all  shall  have  seceded,  none  is  left  to  pay  the  debts  " 


64  The  Real  Lincoln. 


of  the  Union,  the  answer  is  that  the  States  were  as  well  able 
to  agree  upon  an  adjustment  of  debts  out  of  the  Union  as  in 
the  Union.  The  (Confederate)  commissioners  made  known  to 
Seward  their  perfect  willingness  to  assume  their  proper  share 
of  all  pecuniary  responsibilities  to  creditors.  When  he  says 
that  the  word  "  sovereignty  "  does  not  occur  in  any  of  the 
State  constitutions  he  quibbles  on  a  word,  for  the  constitutions 
of  Vermont,  New  Hampshire  and  Massachusetts  contain  the 
words,  "  free  and  independent,"  and  "  free,  independent,  and 
sovereign,"  as  descriptive  of  the  political  character  of  their 
people.  When  he  says  that  the  States  never  existed  out  of  the 
Union,  and  were,  therefore,  not  sovereign,  the  answer  is  that, 
if  there  is  anything  in  this  argument,  he  must  first  show  that 
there  is  something  in  the  nature  of  Union  which  is  contradic- 
tory to  separate  State  nationality.  History  records  numerous 
instances  of  States  leagued  together  for  common  purposes,  and 
the  international  law  writers  have  over  and  over  asserted  that 
sovereign  States  may  unite  and  present  one  national  front  to 
the  world,  without  any  of  them  losing  that  character  of 
sovereignty  as  defined  by  Lincoln — "  a  political  community 
without  a  political  superior." 

Indeed,  one  is  compelled  to  think  that  Lincoln  was  laughing 
in  his  sleeve  at  his  own  solemn  absurdities,  for  the  same 
message  contains  a  flat-footed  sentence  which  shows  that  the 
honest  idea  he  had  in  his  mind  at  the  time  was  the  suppression 
of  the  "  rebellion  "  at  any  sacrifice.  This  sentence  is  as  fol- 
lows: "  These  measures "  (calling  out  troops,  blockading 
Southern  ports,  suspending  the  writ  of  Habeas  Corpus,  etc.), 
"  whether  strictly  legal  or  not,  were  ventured  upon  under  what 
appeared  to  be  a  popular  demand  and  a  public  necessity,  trust- 
ing, then  as  now,  that  Congress  would  readily  ratify  them." 

Destruction  of  Private  Property* 

To  be  plain  about  it,  a  man  must  seek  high  and  low  to  find 
anything  that  is  ennobling  or  refining  in  Lincoln's  adminis- 
tration. International  law  sets  the  finger  of  condemnation  on 
the  burning  of  towns,  colleges,  private  houses,  unnecessary 
destruction  of  private  property,  and  the  abuse  and  punishment 


Destruction  of  Private  Property.  65 

of  non-combatants.  And  yet,  the  generals  of  Lincoln,  without 
any  rebuke  from  the  President,  perpetrated  everywhere 
throughout  the  South  the  most  flagrant  violations  of  interna- 
tional law.  Major  George  B.  Davis,  Judge-Advocate  of  the 
United  States  army,  says,  in  his  work  on  international  law, 
that  the  policy  of  the  United  States  "  during  the  rebellion," 
in  the  matter  of  requisitions  was  "  far  from  liberal."  I  should 
think  so!  Private  property  was  taken  everywhere  without  any 
form  of  compensation.  All  non-combatants  over  sixteen  years 
of  both  sexes  within  the  Federal  lines  were  required  either  to 
take  an  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  Federal  Government  or  be 
sent  outside  the  lines;  perhaps,  to  starve  or  die  in  the  woods. 
Lincoln  published,  under  his  own  proclamation,  an  act  of  Con- 
gress, dated  July  25,  1862,  which  denounced  either  death,  or 
severe  imprisonment,  or  confiscation,  or  a  fine  not  exceeding 
$10,000,  on  every  person  in  both  sections  assisting  in  any  way 
in  "  the  existing  rebellion."  What  would  people  at  this  time 
think  of  the  Queen  of  Great  Britain  sanctioning  such  an 
anathema  against  the  Boers,  or  of  President  McKinley  against 
"  the  rebel  Philippines  "?  Much  is  said  of  Lincoln's  "  practical 
sagacity,"  but  did  he  show  it  in  the  selection  of  Burnside, 
McDowell,  Pope,  and  Hooker  to  lead  his  army  in  Virginia? 
Even  his  emancipation  policy  was  only  a  war  measure, 
the  example  of  which  had  been  set  a  hundred  years  before 
by  the  British  Government.  At  that  time  "  the  wicked  policy  " 
of  freeing  the  slaves  and  arming  them  against  their  masters 
had  been  condemned  in  the  Declaration  of  Vermont  and  by  the 
people  of  the  country  generally.  And  now,  in  1863,  that  a 
servile  war  did  not  at  once  ensue,  involving  in  indiscriminate 
butchery,  men,  women,  and  children  in  the  South  and  the 
repetition  of  the  scenes  of  horror  which  had  once  prevailed 
in  Haiti,  was  not  at  all  due  to  the  humanity  of  Lincoln.* 

*  "  Mr.  Lincoln's  virtual  declaration  of  war  and  blockade .  was  coupled  with 
two  acts  which  cast  a  glaring  light  on  the  often-vaunted  humanity  of  the 
North,  and  the  personal  tenderness  of  nature  and  freedom  from  vindictive 
passion  ascribed  to  the  President.  The  latter  ordered  that  Confederate 
commissions  or  letters  of  marque  granted  to  private  or  public  ships  should 
be  disregarded,  and  their  crews  treated  as  pirates.  He  also  declared 
medicines  of  all  kinds  '  contraband  of  war.'  Both  acts  violated  every  rule 
of  civilized  war,  and  outraged  the  conscience  of  Christendom."  History  of 
the  United  States,  (by  Percy  Greg,  Vol.  II.,  p.  182— American  Edition;  Rich- 
mond, Virginia— West,  Johnson  &  Co.,  1892).—  [Note  by  the  Editor], 


66  The  Real  Lincoln. 


His  Humanity* 

Nor  can  the  cold  facts  of  history  see  any  "  humanity  "  in 
Lincoln's  policy  as  to  the  prisoners  taken  on  both  sides.  The 
story  of  these  poor  men  was  a  sad  one.  For  much  of  their 
suffering  in  Confederate  prisons  the  refusal  of  the  Lincoln 
government  to  permit  the  cartel  of  exchange  is  undoubtedly 
responsible.  There  was,  moreover,  absolutely  no  excuse  for 
the  government  of  the  Union,  in  the  midst  of  plenty,  for 
starving  and  maltreating  the  unfortunate  Confederates  who 
fell  into  their  hands.  Governor  Morehead,  of  Kentucky,  is  a 
witness  to  the  fact  that  the  horrors  of  Fort  Warren,  even  in 
Boston  harbor,  were  such  that  prisoners  were  driven  mad. 

In  concluding,  I  wish  to  say  that  if  Northern  writers  are 
determined  to  set  up  a  standard  of  character  and  rectitude 
for  the  South,  let  them  be  wiser  in  their  selection  of  their 
ideals.  While  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  South  has  entirely 
eclipsed  the  North  in  the  production  of  moral  heroes  (witness 
Washington,  Jefferson,  Madison,  Monroe,  Calhoun,  Davis, 
Jackson  and  Lee),  yet  there  are  many  men  in  the  history  of  the 
North  noted  for  the  singular  purity  and  excellence  of  their 
lives,  whose  example  we  will  be  proud  to  point  out  to  our 
children. 


Ail 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS-URBANA 
973.7L63B2M66R  C001 

THE  REAL  LINCOLN  RICHMOND,  VA. 


30112031794826 


